Abstract
The proposal of an economy that is circular and without the need for material or energy input has an irresistible appeal to those who recognize the precautionary concept of planetary boundaries and acknowledge that resources are limited. Thus, in the public discourse, its narrative outperforms other lines of arguments when it comes to keeping radical critics of destructive extractivism and the growth imperative in check and averting discussion of degrowth, post-growth, or other systemic alternatives by larger segments of the population and government bodies. Moreover, the myth of a circular economy has the additional benefit that it can win over parts of the environmental movement that is apprehensive of radical and transformative change, particularly in the urban milieus of a middle class that enjoys the privileges of the current social order. In this paper, I argue that the circular economy narrative tends to hinder the necessary systemic transformation while entailing a wide range of specific measures that deserve to be recognized for their merit.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Now that the narrative of recycling has lost its luster, the circular economy has become the new buzzword for sustainability advocates. After decades of promoting reuse and recycling, a growing amount of waste ended up feeding into a flourishing recycling industry without tackling the problem of production-associated emissions or increased consumption of raw materials (Alfredsson et al., 2018). In contrast, a sustainable and circular economy would allow a progressive reduction in resource input by creating closed loops, guaranteeing the well-being of future generations, while creating jobs and saving energy (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Stahel, 2016). This proposal was also picked up by political actors like the European Commission which framed the circular economy as a regenerative growth model for a sustainable economic system (European Commission, 2020), a framework which however has been criticized as inconsistent and imprecise on the ground that it does not reckon with the inability to use natural resources many times over without the need to extract them anew, and thus struggles with a low degree of circularity (Kovacic et al., 2020). On the backdrop of unabated man-made climate change (IPCC, 2023), deteriorating biodiversity and ecosystem functions (IPBES, 2019), and the coming of a new geological epoch termed the Anthropocene to substitute the relative stability of the Holocene (Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000; Steffen et al., 2007), it must be discussed if the circular economy proposal will entail sufficient transformative change of the existing socioeconomic metabolism which is indispensable to overcome the current conundrum (Krausmann et al., 2018). Furthermore, I argue that the apparent logic and beauty of the circular economy concept indeed obfuscates the need for a radical reduction and redistribution of energy (Millward-Hopkins et al., 2020) and overall consumption (Wiedmann et al., 2020), including the renunciation of continued exploitation of raw materials from formerly colonized geographies (Alcoff, 2022) that upholds an unsustainable ‘imperial’ mode of living (Brand et al., 2017).
Even if not endorsed by classical economic theory, economic activity operates within the natural environment and is subject to the laws of nature that set limits to human endeavor. Without naming the proposal of a circular economy explicitly, Boulding (1966) introduced the concept of the Earth System as a closed loop where material entropy that occurs outside of natural processes can only be countered by constant energy input. Yet, under the premises of the Laws of Thermodynamics, the energy contained in a closed system is unchangeable, and irreversible spontaneous processes will increase entropy in the sense of homogeneous distribution of energy or matter to a maximum (Sandler and Woodcock, 2010; Starikov, 2021). Drawing on these considerations, the economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen scrutinized the relevance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the Entropy Law) for the economic process and emphasized that it operates on a unidimensional timeline where energy is dissipated and natural resources are depleted, which renders a growth economy, or even a steady-state economy, impossible in the long-term (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971).
The ideas of Boulding and Georgescu-Roegen inspired the concept of Degrowth that proposes a radical transformation of the societies in the global North to reduce their ecological metabolism and resource avidity (Bonaiuti, 2018; Kallis et al., 2012, 2018; Kerschner, 2010). While critics observe that Georgescu-Roegen might have misinterpreted the Second Law of Thermodynamics drawing an improper analogy between the entropy of energy and the entropy of material substance, his work is still a valid contribution to the economic discussion about the theoretical impossibility of full recycling due to the distinction between stocks—non-renewable in any circumstances—and funds which are renewable if exploited at a sufficiently low rate (Khalil, 2004).
Envisioning a circular economy and the concept of the perpetuum mobile
When Leonardo da Vinci postulated the impossibility of a perpetuum mobile within the physical conditions of planet Earth (Bera, 2021), he could not have imagined that a similar concept would be resurrected five centuries later. But the ancient dream of humanity to create an apparatus that would work incessantly without the additional input of human labor, or an external source of energy or material, awoke to new life: the congenial concept of a circular economy promises to transform waste into wealth and to warrant the pursuit of exponential—yet sustainable—economic growth forever. But while the idea of a circular economy has become increasingly popular, it still draws, albeit not explicitly, on prior concepts of industrial ecology and industrial symbiosis that support the sustainable development agenda (Cecchin et al., 2021).
Before the industrial revolution set off, global economic activity was almost entirely circular but the advent of mass production and the increasing use of fossil fuels that promoted more effective extraction of other natural resources transformed circularity into a linear process that started to deplete natural resources and created large amounts of waste (Bali Swain and Sweet, 2021). More than 50 years ago, the report on the Limits to Growth, commissioned by the Club of Rome and compiled by a team of international scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Meadows et al., 1972), unmasked the unsustainability of the make-use-dispose process of the linear economy, and it became necessary to create a renewed public perception regarding waste management and resource use (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017), if the fundamentals of the capitalist economy were to remain unquestioned. Hence, framing waste as a resource (Zaman, 2022) not only created the opportunity for collective action and research, based on an experience of shared ideas and values but also granted the possibility to encompass resource use and waste production within the limits of the current economic system.
Scrutinizing the circular economy and conceptualizing it as an umbrella concept that connects previously unrelated constructs to create a new paradigm, can create an understanding of its consolidation as a new narrative that is characterized by continuing to branch out and becoming more and more complex over time (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017). As Hirsch and Levin (1999) point out, an umbrella construct can be particularly useful in fields that lack a solid theoretical background but where its validity tends to be less challenged by a nonacademic constituency. Understanding the circular economy as an umbrella concept could therefore contribute to decoding the popularity of the circular economy proposal, despite its shortcomings and inconsistencies that have been detailed.
In their revision of the circular economy concept, Kirchherr et al. (2017) mustered a plethora of 114 definitions which in itself illustrates its heterogeneity and the need to resort to frameworks like the umbrella concept to maintain the notion of a coherent explanatory model. After an iterative coding process that embraced 17 dimensions, the authors came up with a definition of the circular economy as “an economic system that is based on business models which replace the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes, thus operating at the micro level (products, companies, consumers), meso level (eco-industrial parks) and macro level (city, region, nation and beyond), with the aim to accomplish sustainable development, which implies creating environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity, to the benefit of current and future generations” (Kirchherr et al., 2017: pp. 224–225). Additionally, they underscored the necessity of renouncing subverted definitions of the circular economy that are mostly framed as a path to economic prosperity and are pushing the social and environmental goals into the background while not recognizing ‘Reduce’ as a top priority to surpass only incremental improvements and to bring about effective and transformative change. Indeed, only three of the 114 definitions that were analyzed entail all elements of the final definition. Consequently, the imperative of reduction clashes with the business models of the real economy that are built on the pursuit of growth and profit, within the framework of the capitalist market economy, thus hampering the ‘strong’ sufficiency practices that would be in line with the comprehensive definition of a circular economy that Kirchherr et al. (2017) bring forward. This dilemma is unscored by a study in a sample of 150 companies that proactively communicate their commitment to sustainability and sufficiency but refrain from actually encouraging the refusal to consume (Bocken et al., 2022).
Even if acknowledging the concept of a circular economy as a useful contribution towards socioeconomic system change, measuring the effective reduction of environmental and social damage that it promotes must be tackled, particularly when excessive resource use is not adequately priced and does not include additional future costs of current resource extraction (Stephan, 2022). Considering that the main strategies for implementing a circular economy include the preservation of the product itself and its function, retrieval of its components, and the recovery of embodied materials and energy, a framework of indicators to embrace these dimensions might consider operating under the concept of Life Cycle Thinking to analyze potential (present and future) impacts and the overall burden or benefit for the environment in comparison to linear processes (Moraga et al., 2019). However, reports on interventions at different levels (micro, meso, and macro) do generally not consider the ‘use phase’ of the life cycle and information on systemic interactions between interventions on different levels is scarce which is particularly unfortunate as the results of interventions on the product level can foster large and unintended rebound effects on the societal or macro level (Makov and Vivanco, 2018).
Limits to a sustainable circular economy
The concept of planetary boundaries aims to define precautionary safeguards for the functioning of the Earth system that should not be surpassed without setting off the risk of abrupt and non-linear environmental shifts that endanger and threaten the safe operating space for humanity (Rockström et al., 2009). Currently, possibly six out of nine planetary boundaries have been breached, including biosphere integrity and climate change (Richardson et al., 2023), which is consistent with the warnings on the rapid deterioration of biodiversity and ecosystem function by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019) and the 2023 Synthesis Report on Climate Change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2023) that alerts on the effects of human-caused climate change on weather and climate extremes which will continue to intensify.
While socioeconomic and (unfavorable) Earth Systems trends have been accelerating since the industrial revolution, mainly due to the activity of OECD countries and, more recently, due to the emerging economies of the so-called BRICS countries, including Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (Steffen et al., 2015), the General Assembly of the United Nations approved the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015), comprising 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets. Also, the “New Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe”, that was adopted by the European Commission to accelerate the transformations required by the European Green Deal (European Commission, 2020) refers explicitly to the Agenda for Sustainable Development. Yet, in both documents, the notion of sustainability remains rather vague and undefined, being “sustainable” mostly used as an axiomatic justification for policy proposals and goals otherwise deemed desirable such as, for instance, poverty eradication, food security, or economic growth.
Also, seemingly unambiguous definitions of sustainable systems as something that survives or persists (Costanza and Patten, 1995) do not give real meaning to the concept as long as they leave out other dimensions of sustainability such as time, space, or scope. Following Salas‐Zapata and Ortiz‐Muñoz (2019), the purposes and meanings that can be ascribed to sustainability include (1) a set of social‐ecological criteria that guide human action, (2) a vision of humankind that is realized through the convergence of the social and ecological objectives of a particular reference system, (3) an object, thing or phenomenon that happens in certain social‐ecological systems, or (4) an approach that entails the incorporation of social and ecological variables into the study of an activity, process or human product (Salas‐Zapata and Ortiz‐Muñoz, 2019: p. 159). The scope of sustainability might therefore be delimited at the level of values (1) and at the macro (2), meso (3), and micro (4) levels. But additionally, the time horizon can be either short (election cycle), medium (lifetime of current generations), or long-term (future generations), while the spatial scale is local, regional, or global. Thus, only using a definition of ‘strong’ sustainability (Spash, 2017) that encompasses a comprehensive scope of social-ecological values and systems on a long-term and global scale shall be consistent with the need for guaranteeing a safe operating space for humanity that is faced with challenges such as climate (in)stability, biodiversity loss, or the endangered balance of the Earth system.
Critics of the concept of sustainable development point out that even apparent progress toward its goals generally conceals ongoing environmental devastation (Bendell, 2022; Zeng et al., 2020). Furthermore, the aim of ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns (SDG 12) seems impossible to attain without effectively reducing production and consumption instead of relying on increased efficiency (which has well-known rebound effects), while the pursuit of economic growth (SDG 8) actually hinders the accomplishment of SDG 12 (Bengtsson et al., 2018). Analyzing the impact of economic growth (SDG 8) on resource consumption Hickel (2019) emphasized that (any) GDP growth would require the decoupling of resource use at a far superior rate than has been achieved historically to effectively reduce the global material footprint (Parrique et al., 2019; Tilsted et al., 2021; Ward et al., 2016). Following a similar line of argument in her critique of SDG 8 that is based on the unsustainability of economic growth, Chertkovskaya (2023) proposes a reframing of the sustainable development agenda into a well-being agenda where human well-being and the need to reduce resource throughput could inform the envisioned socio-ecological transformation.
Besides the antagonism between SDG 8 and 12, in complex dynamic systems like the Sustainable Development Agenda where policies towards a specific goal act on the capacity to accomplish others, it may be expected that these effects are detrimental and create undesirable tradeoffs (Kroll et al., 2019), or even induce unwanted feedback loops, in particular when those goals that would reduce human impact on the Earth system are not prioritized within the framework (Skene, 2021). Supporting this observation, a system-based analysis of local and national policies in Brazil that were informed by the concept of sustainable development concluded that the results were at least inconsistent, both on the economic and the ecological level, while only social goals were (partially) achieved (Donaires et al., 2019).
A reality check on the circularity of the global economy shows that currently only 8.6% can be considered circular, down from 9.1% just two years before, while global material consumption exceeded for the first time 100 Gt of raw materials in 2019, up from 28.6 Gt in 1972 when the Club of Rome’s report on the Limits to Growth was first published (Circle Economy, 2022). Hence, overall material consumption roughly quadrupled while the world population doubled during the same period (Worldometers.info, 2022) and thus decoupled from population growth, a trend that has been observed for more than a hundred years (Marín-Beltrán et al., 2022). Furthermore, the circular economy does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the use of critical primary raw materials because a shift to different raw materials elsewhere in the life cycle can be observed (Schaubroeck, 2020). In this context, the World Bank Group recognizes that by 2050 the transition to purportedly renewable energy production will require over 3 billion tons of minerals and metals, notably graphite, lithium, and cobalt, corresponding to an increase of up to 500%, to stay within the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, while in regard to suitable minerals like copper and aluminum even doubling the rate of recycling would not meet demand (Hund et al., 2020).
Ageing material stocks accumulated in buildings, infrastructure, and machinery, which have increased 23-fold since the beginning of the 20th century and continue to grow, represent another challenge for the circular economy concept and require continuous energy and material flows for maintenance, dismantling, and (re)construction with a current recycling rate of just 12%, and an anticipated need for disposal of 35% over the period from 2010 to 2030 due to the end of their service lifetimes (Krausmann et al., 2017). Against this backdrop, only a substantially lower level of material stocks would allow achieving a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to keep global warming at bay (Krausmann et al., 2020). Thus, circularity must be combined with the concept of longevity to overcome inherent limitations and address material turnover, in an effort to increase eco-efficient resource use (Figge et al., 2018), while rebound effects due to efficiency gains need to be addressed comprehensively (Zink and Geyer, 2017). Moreover, the attempt to avoid landfill within the European Union and to comply with the goal of a circular economy often displaces the treatment of waste towards the global South, feeding into international recycling networks that burden people and environments with cleaning up a problem that they did not cause (Gregson et al., 2015).
Overall, critical reviews of the circular economy point out the flaws of definition and the uncertain overall results, but also the neglect of established knowledge and issues of feasibility, including the limitations due to unaccounted secondary energy and material input due to inefficient limited repurposing or recycling potential (Corvellec et al., 2022; Cullen, 2017). But, additionally, the underlying “ideological agenda” that includes the emphasis on entrepreneurship, business models, and the infinite possibility of technical solutions also derives its strength from the seductive appeal of the circle as the archetype of perfection and completeness, thus turning the metaphor mythical and irresistible (Corvellec et al., 2022).
The unsustainable charm of pro-environmental behavior
The umbrella concept of the circular economy relates closely to the concept of lifestyle in high-income countries of the global North. As laid out by Mikael Jensen (2007), the concept of lifestyle can be defined on four levels, from global to individual, and entails the notion of consumer identity which, besides the manifestations of national, cultural, and subcultural identities, expresses identity on an individual level through the process and type of material consumption. Products perceived as environmentally friendly and fairly traded embody a message of ethical concern and humanitarian consciousness and consumers associate them with a positive moral value that allows to dress up consumption as pro-environmental behavior. Hence, environmentally concerned people tend to achieve self-realization through “green” consumption patterns but don’t forego necessarily consumption and resource use itself, focusing instead on measures that are promoted within the concept of a circular economy, like (zero-)waste and recycling, to maintain consistent personal narratives (Connolly and Prothero, 2003) or to enhance their positional value in the peer community (Kesenheimer and Greitemeyer, 2021). As emphasized by Lorek and Fuchs (2019), this type of ‘weak’ sustainable consumption represents foremostly purchasable efficiency gains that are available to affluent consumers and occur without effective environmental gains, an observation that is also supported by Moser and Kleinhückelkotten (2018). On the contrary, ‘strong’ sustainable consumption requires embracing sufficiency and the reduction of overall consumption in high-consuming classes which could grant a dignified life for all and replace the growth paradigm (Sandberg, 2021; Sandberg et al., 2019).
Indeed, higher household income is closely associated with a greater ecological footprint (Adua, 2022; Alfredsson et al., 2018; Feng et al., 2021; Hardadi et al., 2021) and individual environmental concerns and pro-environmental behavior in the private sphere do not necessarily reduce household carbon footprint (Csutora, 2012; Huddart Kennedy et al., 2015). Thus, the example of air travel, which represents a major share of individual greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in high-income urban populations (Czepkiewicz et al., 2019; Ivanova et al., 2020) and is rarely relinquished, demonstrates that even people with internalized knowledge about climate change show a large gap between attitude and practice (Jacobson et al., 2020). This finding is supported by the analysis of representative datasets of the UK population which also showed no association between pro-environmental values and concerns and the reduction of non-work-related flying behavior (Alcock et al., 2017).
The apparent inconsistencies between pro-environmentalism, “green” lifestyle, and environmentally harmful habits like travel patterns with high climate impact seem difficult to explain at first glance. However, alongside denial mechanisms that are similar to those that erect psychological barriers to shifting from material comfort to a low-energy behavior (Stoll-Kleemann et al., 2001), moral disengagement triggered by aggressive advertising of long-distance travel contributes to the blanketing out of its climate effects (Stubenvoll and Neureiter, 2021). Additionally, the effect of moral licensing may further enable the denial of existing contradictions between material and energy consumption, associated greenhouse gas emissions, and the narrative of a sustainable circular economy. In moral psychology, ethical behavior is closely linked to the self-perceived value of moral acts that interfere with self-interest. But while past transgressions increase the resolve to engage in ethical behavior, the boost to the moral self after acting ethically can provoke subsequent licensing of egoistic and unethical attitudes, particularly when there is a conflict between self-interest and an abstract value or goal, or self-construal is based on social roles and relationships (Blanken et al., 2015; Mullen and Monin, 2016; Xiong et al., 2023).
Under the assumption that purchasing environmentally friendly products might prompt subsequent unethical behavior, Mazar and Zhong (2010) studied the effect of moral licensing in an experimental study on Canadian students that showed a positive association between the prospect of green consumption and high moral and social values. However, while the mere exposure to environmental-friendly products had a favorable effect on altruistic behavior, the actual purchase of these products led to a decrease in altruistic behavior and even to clearly unethical conduct. In a similar study on the potential of behavior change initiatives and policies to increase overall pro-environmental behavior (positive spillover), Clot et al. (2022) studied the effect of ”green licensing” in a group of 85 undergraduates at a UK university and concluded that licensing actually provoked a negative spillover and worse pro-environmental behavior in other domains. Additionally, engaging in moral licensing can contribute significantly to the rebound effect that is observed after efficiency gains through technological improvements, in particular regarding heating and mobility, thus expanding on a mere economic explanation of rebound (Dorner, 2019; Dütschke et al., 2018).
Complementing this argument within a larger moral self-regulation framework, Shalvi et al. (2015) emphasize that self-serving justifications act in protection of the moral self, either in advance of intentional unethical behavior, resorting to mechanisms of ambiguity, self-serving altruism, and moral licensing, or afterward, using physical or symbolic cleansing, partial confessing, and distancing with pointing to others’ moral failures. Thus, in analogy, the peril of the circular economy narrative lies in its apparent logical serenity and opportune resolution of the psychological intricacies that characterize the conflict between ‘green lifestyles’, enacted pro-environmentalism, and engrained consumption patterns, while its mainstream meanderings refrain from substantially transforming the growth economy.
Clues for transformative change
The concept of zero-waste, recycling, and a circular economy does not only operate on an individual level to justify unsustainable consumption patterns but can also be understood as an attempt to render the challenging of industrial capitalism impossible, removing it from the political sphere towards a depoliticized question of consumer behavior (Valenzuela and Böhm, 2017). But even when consumers turn to recycling fetishism, in a symbolic effort of redemption that suppresses the acknowledgment of wasteful behavior and intends to obtain moral permission for future consumption, the cleaves and cracks of the current global socioeconomic system become visible. Hothouse Earth pathways loom on the horizon (Steffen et al., 2018) and disruptive behaviors of the Earth system are not science fiction anymore but a real prospect (Bernardini et al., 2022). The call for environmental justice and decolonization can no longer be ignored (Sultana, 2023) and resounds with proposals for a degrowth future in the global North (Singh, 2019; Sultana, 2023). Thus, “ideas such as those of subsistence-living, the balance between all living beings and reciprocity, self-sufficiency, and self-reliance open the possibility for debates in which both sets of movements can contribute”, thus co-creating convivial technologies and alternative economic systems that refuse neoliberal growth narratives (Rodríguez-Labajos et al., 2019: p. 182). Moreover, the current social and ecological crises require imagining “other ways of being, and transformative change to our economic life”, where “the social body, with a shared commitment to life in common, is a common goal that unites diverse struggles, including environmental justice and degrowth movements. The success of these diverse struggles in fostering collective subjectivity and postcapitalist alternatives will depend on the ability of these diverse movements to come together, stand in solidarity, learn from each other, and tell alternate stories about how we are to live the Anthropocene” (Singh 2019: p. 141).
Natalie Ralph’s proposal of conceptual merging of circular economy, degrowth and conviviality design approaches might represent a first step in the direction of circular futures while reappropriating the idea of a circular economy for a framework that embraces local sourcing of raw materials, the possibility of local manufacturing, and the inclusion of users’ creativity in the design process, thus creating products that fulfill an effective need and not an artificially induced desire, are widely accessible, contribute to future sharing and learning, and can be modified or improved without restriction during an extended life cycle and repaired by an average person (Ralph, 2021). This proposal, however, requires engaging in a participated policy process which is critical to achieve indispensable popular support (Kongshøj, 2023) and will be characterized by the need to address complex problems within the uncertainties of post-normal science where decision stakes are high (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994). Hence, a circular economy discourse that aims to reach beyond variations of the R’s of waste management and resource use will necessarily have to embrace systemic socio-ecological transformation and a “plurality of alternatives” to envision participated circular futures (Calisto Friant et al., 2020). Alongside the acknowledgment of planetary boundaries, the formulation of societal boundaries is mandatory to enable a fair and conscious decision process that creates the conditions for a good life for all within a framework of collective self-limitation which overcomes the imperial mode of living at the expense of others (Brand et al., 2021).
The transformation of social structures that allows us to envision a future that entails elements of the circular economy without succumbing to its vicissitudes will possibly require the shift from market relations to human relations, within a framework of “intentional sharing and togetherness” (Jarvis 2019: p. 270). Renouncing explicitly the idea of a consumption-orientated sharing economy, Jarvis puts forward a concept of “real places and co-present realities” that might occur in collective endeavors like co-housing or food cooperatives which, in turn, shape relational human values. This framework entails individual agency, collective intentionality and ‘we-intentions’, participatory democratic procedures, and the defense of ecosystems and ideals of social justice within practices inspired by the degrowth mindset, understood as a “radical niche innovation” to counter the dynamics of growth capitalism and to create diverse—pluriversal—pathways towards alternative practices and systemic change (Kothari et al., 2019; Vandeventer et al., 2019).
Concluding remarks
The amazing diversity of circular economy definitions seems to allow picking and choosing those that are most suited to one’s preferences and particular circumstances, without changing the dynamics of the industrial growth economy or demanding radical individual and systemic transformation. Thus, the utopia of circularity apparently sanctions the maintenance of privileged habits of conspicuous consumption, within a framework of green lifestyles and pro-environmental behaviors, to end up reinforcing the status quo of unsustainable exploitation of the Earth’s resources while only a small—and diminishing—fraction of materials is reused or recycled, and global consumption continues unabated. Psychological mechanisms like moral licensing can hinder transformative behavioral change even in groups that exhibit high moral standards and acknowledge the predicament of the destruction of the biosphere, particularly when its members enjoy the economic privileges that entitle them to an environmentally destructive lifestyle. In contrast, ‘strong’ sustainability and an all-embracing circular economy require prioritizing ‘Reduce’ without losing sight of social and environmental justice. Thus, without a paradigm shift in overall societal goals from economic growth towards sustainable and regenerative practices, the current conflict between self-interest, interwoven with dominating societal norms, and consistent pro-environmental behavior remains irresoluble, except in fringe groups that operate outside of the mainstream society and either are driven by strong moral values or bound to vernacular lifestyles that are directly threatened by the industrial growth economy.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this research as no data was generated or analyzed.
References
Adua L (2022) Super polluters and carbon emissions: Spotlighting how higher-income and wealthier households disproportionately despoil our atmospheric commons. Energy Policy 162:112768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112768
Alcock I, White MP, Taylor T, Coldwell DF, Gribble MO, Evans KL, Corner A, Vardoulakis S, Fleming LE (2017) ‘Green’ on the ground but not in the air: pro-environmental attitudes are related to household behaviours but not discretionary air travel. Glob Environ Change 42:136–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.11.005
Alcoff LM (2022) Extractivist epistemologies. Tapuya: Lat Am Sci Technol Soc 5:2127231. https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2022.2127231
Alfredsson E, Bengtsson M, Brown HS, Isenhour C, Lorek S, Stevis D, Vergragt P (2018) Why achieving the Paris Agreement requires reduced overall consumption and production. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 14:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2018.1458815
Bali Swain R, Sweet S (2021) Sustainable consumption and production: introduction to circular economy and beyond. In: Bali Swain R, Sweet S (eds.). Sustainable consumption and production, volume II: vol. II. pp. 1–16). Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–16
Bendell J (2022) Replacing sustainable development: potential frameworks for international cooperation in an era of increasing crises and disasters. Sustainability 14(13):8185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138185
Bengtsson M, Alfredsson E, Cohen M, Lorek S, Schroeder P (2018) Transforming systems of consumption and production for achieving the sustainable development goals: moving beyond efficiency. Sustain Sci 13:1533–1547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0582-1
Bera RK (2021) On scientific theories and their impact on society. SSRN Electron J 1979:1–35. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3912391
Bernardini AE, Bertolami O, Francisco F (2022) Chaotic behaviour of the earth system in the Anthropocene. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.08955
Blanken I, van de Ven N, Zeelenberg M (2015) A meta-analytic review of moral licensing. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 41:540–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215572134
Blomsma F, Brennan G (2017) The emergence of circular economy: a new framing around prolonging resource productivity. J Ind Ecol 21:603–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12603
Bocken NMP, Niessen L, Short SW (2022) The sufficiency-based circular economy—an analysis of 150 companies. Front Sustain 3:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.899289
Bonaiuti M (2018) Are we entering the age of involuntary degrowth? Promethean technologies and declining returns of innovation. J Clean Prod 197:1800–1809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.196
Boulding K (1966) The economics of the coming spaceship earth. In: Jarrett H (ed.). Environmental quality in a growing economy. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. pp. 3–14
Brand U, Boos T, Brad A (2017) Degrowth and post-extractivism: two debates with suggestions for the inclusive development framework. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 24:36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.007
Brand U, Muraca B, Pineault É, Sahakian M, Schaffartzik A, Novy A, Streissler C, Haberl H, Asara V, Dietz K, Lang M, Kothari A, Smith T, Spash C, Brad A, Pichler M, Plank C, Velegrakis G, Jahn T, Görg C (2021) From planetary to societal boundaries: an argument for collectively defined self-limitation. Sustain Sci, Pract Policy 17:264–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2021.1940754
Calisto Friant M, Vermeulen WJV, Salomone R (2020) A typology of circular economy discourses: navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resour, Conserv Recycl 161:104917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104917
Cecchin A, Salomone R, Deutz P, Raggi A, Cutaia L (2021) What is in a name? The rising star of the circular economy as a resource-related concept for sustainable development. Circ Econ Sustain 1:83–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00021-4
Chertkovskaya E (2023) From economic growth to socio-ecological transformation: rethinking visions of economy and work under SDG 8. In: Partzsch L (ed.). The environment in global sustainability governance. Bristol University Press. pp. 197–216
Circle Economy (2022) The Circularity Gap Report 2022. Circle Economy, Amsterdam
Clot S, Della Giusta M, Jewell S (2022) Once good, always good? Testing Nudge’s spillovers on pro environmental behavior. Environ Behav 54:655–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165211060524
Connolly J, Prothero A (2003) Sustainable consumption: consumption, consumers and the commodity discourse. Consum Mark Cult 6:275–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/1025386032000168311
Corvellec H, Stowell AF, Johansson N (2022) Critiques of the circular economy. J Ind Ecol 26(2):421–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13187
Costanza R, Patten BC (1995) Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecol Econ 15:193–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(95)00048-8
Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF (2000) The “Anthropocene. IGBP Newsl 41:17–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10614-1
Csutora M (2012) One more awareness gap? The behaviour–impact gap problem. J Consum Policy 35:145–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-012-9187-8
Cullen JM (2017) Circular economy: theoretical benchmark or perpetual motion machine? J Ind Ecol 21:483–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12599
Czepkiewicz M, Árnadóttir Á, Heinonen J (2019) Flights dominate travel emissions of young urbanites. Sustainability 11:6340. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226340
Donaires OS, Cezarino LO, Caldana ACF, Liboni L (2019) Sustainable development goals—an analysis of outcomes. Kybernetes 48:183–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-10-2017-0401
Dorner Z (2019) A behavioral rebound effect. J Environ Econ Manag 98:102257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2019.102257
Dütschke E, Frondel M, Schleich J, Vance C (2018) Moral licensing—another source of rebound? Front Energy Res 6:1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2018.00038
European Commission (2020) A new circular economy action plan: for a cleaner and more competitive Europe. COM/2020/98 final. European Commission
Feng K, Hubacek K, Song K (2021) Household carbon inequality in the U.S. J Clean Prod 278:123994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123994
Figge F, Thorpe AS, Givry P, Canning L, Franklin-Johnson E (2018) Longevity and circularity as indicators of eco-efficient resource use in the circular economy. Ecol Econ 150:297–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.030
Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1994) Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environ Toxicol Chem 13:1881–1885. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620131203
Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken NMP, Hultink EJ (2017) The circular economy—a new sustainability paradigm? J Clean Prod 143:757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
Georgescu-Roegen N (1971) Cambridge. The entropy law and the economic process. Harvard University Press
Gregson N, Crang M, Fuller S, Holmes H (2015) Interrogating the circular economy: the moral economy of resource recovery in the EU. Econ Soc 44:218–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2015.1013353
Hardadi G, Buchholz A, Pauliuk S (2021) Implications of the distribution of German household environmental footprints across income groups for integrating environmental and social policy design. J Ind Ecol 25:95–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13045
Hickel J (2019) The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: Growth versus ecology on a finite planet. Sustain Dev 27:873–884. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1947
Hirsch PM, Levin DZ (1999) Umbrella advocates versus validity police: a life-cycle model. Organ Sci 10:199–212. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.2.199
Huddart Kennedy E, Krahn H, Krogman NT (2015) Are we counting what counts? A closer look at environmental concern, pro-environmental behaviour, and carbon footprint. Local Environ 20:220–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.837039
Hund K, La Porta D, Fabregas T, Laing T, Drexhage J (2020) Minerals for climate action: The mineral intensity of the clean energy transition. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank
IPBES (2019) Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Brondizio E, Diaz S, Settele J, HT Ngo HT (eds.)). IPBES Secretariat, Bonn
IPCC (2023) Climate change 2023—synthesis report: a report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC
Ivanova D, Barrett J, Wiedenhofer D, Macura B, Callaghan M, Creutzig F (2020) Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environ Res Lett 15:093001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8589
Jacobson L, Åkerman J, Giusti M, Bhowmik A (2020) Tipping to staying on the ground: internalized knowledge of climate change crucial for transformed air travel behavior. Sustainability 12:1994. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051994
Jarvis H (2019) Sharing, togetherness and intentional degrowth. Prog Hum Geogr 43:256–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517746519
Jensen M (2007) Defining lifestyle. Environ Sci 4:63–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15693430701472747
Kallis G, Kerschner C, Martinez-Alier J (2012) The economics of degrowth. Ecol Econ 84:172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.017
Kallis G, Kostakis V, Lange S, Muraca B, Paulson S, Schmelzer M (2018) Research on degrowth. Annu Rev Environ Resour 43:291–316. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025941
Kerschner C (2010) Economic de-growth vs. steady-state economy. J Clean Prod 18:544–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.10.019
Kesenheimer JS, Greitemeyer T (2021) Greenwash yourself: the relationship between communal and agentic narcissism and pro-environmental behavior. J Environ Psychol 75:101621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101621
Khalil EL (2004) The three laws of thermodynamics and the theory of production. J Econ Issue 38:201–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2004.11506672
Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl127:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
Kongshøj K (2023) Social policy in a future of degrowth? Challenges for decommodification, commoning and public support. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:850. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02255-z
Kothari A, Salleh A, Escobar A, Demaria F, Acosta A (eds.) (2019) Pluriverse: a post-development dictionary. Tulika Books, New Dehli
Kovacic Z, Strand R, Völker T (2020) The circular economy in Europe. Routledge, Abingdon
Krausmann F, Lauk C, Haas W, Wiedenhofer D (2018) From resource extraction to outflows of wastes and emissions: The socioeconomic metabolism of the global economy, 1900–2015. Glob Environ Change 52:131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.003
Krausmann F, Wiedenhofer D, Haberl H (2020) Growing stocks of buildings, infrastructures and machinery as key challenge for compliance with climate targets. Glob Environ Change 61:102034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102034
Krausmann F, Wiedenhofer D, Lauk C, Haas W, Tanikawa H, Fishman T, Miatto A, Schandl H, Haberl H (2017) Global socioeconomic material stocks rise 23-fold over the 20th century and require half of annual resource use. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:1880–1885. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1613773114
Kroll C, Warchold A, Pradhan P (2019) Sustainable development goals (SDGs): are we successful in turning trade-offs into synergies? Palgrave Commun 5:140. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0335-5
Lorek S, Fuchs D (2019) Why only strong sustainable consumption governance will make a difference. In: Mont O (ed.). A research agenda for sustainable consumption governance. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. pp. 19–34
Makov T, Vivanco DF (2018) Does the circular economy grow the pie? The case of rebound effects from smartphone reuse. Front Energy Res 6:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2018.00039
Marín-Beltrán I, Demaria F, Ofelio C, Serra LM, Turiel A, Ripple WJ, Mukul SA, Costa MC (2022) Scientists’ warning against the society of waste. Sci Total Environ 811:151359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151359
Mazar N, Zhong C-B (2010) Do green products make us better people? Psychol Sci 21:494–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610363538
Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens III WW (1972) The limits to growth. Universe Books, New York
Millward-Hopkins J, Steinberger JK, Rao ND, Oswald Y (2020) Providing decent living with minimum energy: a global scenario. Glob Environ Change 65:102168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102168
Moraga G, Huysveld S, Mathieux F, Blengini GA, Alaerts L, Van Acker K, de Meester S, Dewulf J (2019) Circular economy indicators: what do they measure? Resour, Conserv Recycl 146:452–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.045
Moser S, Kleinhückelkotten S (2018) Good intents, but low impacts: diverging importance of motivational and socioeconomic determinants explaining pro-environmental behavior, energy use, and carbon footprint. Environ Behav 50:626–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517710685
Mullen E, Monin B (2016) Consistency versus licensing effects of past moral behavior. Annu Rev Psychol 67:363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115120
Parrique T, Barth J, Briens F, Kerschner C, Kraus-Polk A, Kuokkanen A, Spangenberg JH (2019) Decoupling debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. European Environmental Bureau
Ralph N (2021) A conceptual merging of circular economy, degrowth and conviviality design approaches applied to renewable energy technology. J Clean Prod 319:128549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128549
Richardson K, Steffen W, Lucht W, Bendtsen J, Cornell SE, Donges JF, Drüke M, Fetzer I, Bala G, von Bloh W, Feulner G, Fiedler S, Gerten D, Gleeson T, Hofmann M, Huiskamp W, Kummu M, Mohan C, Nogués-Bravo D, Rockström J (2023) Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Sci Adv 9:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Foley JA (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
Rodríguez-Labajos B, Yánez I, Bond P, Greyl L, Munguti S, Ojo GU, Overbeek W (2019) Not so natural an alliance? Degrowth and environmental justice movements in the global South. Ecol Econ 157:175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.11.007
Salas‐Zapata WA, Ortiz‐Muñoz SM (2019) Analysis of meanings of the concept of sustainability. Sustain Dev 27:153–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1885
Sandberg M (2021) Sufficiency transitions: a review of consumption changes for environmental sustainability. J Clean Prod 293:126097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126097
Sandberg M, Klockars K, Wilén K (2019) Green growth or degrowth? Assessing the normative justifications for environmental sustainability and economic growth through critical social theory. J Clean Prod 206:133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.175
Sandler SI, Woodcock LV (2010) HistoricaL Observations on Laws of Thermodynamics. J Chem Eng Data 55:4485–4490. https://doi.org/10.1021/je1006828
Schaubroeck T (2020) Circular economy practices may not always lead to lower criticality or more sustainability; analysis and guidance is needed per case. Resour, Conserv Recycl 162:104977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104977
Shalvi S, Gino F, Barkan R, Ayal S (2015) Self-serving justifications. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 24:125–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414553264
Singh NM (2019) Environmental justice, degrowth and post-capitalist futures. Ecol Econ 163:138–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.014
Skene KR (2021) No goal is an island: the implications of systems theory for the sustainable development goals. Environ Dev Sustain 23:9993–10012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01043-y
Spash CL (ed.) (2017) Routledge handbook of ecological economics. Routledge, Abingdon
Stahel WR (2016) The circular economy. Nature 531:435–438. https://doi.org/10.1038/531435a
Starikov EB (2021) How many laws has thermodynamics? What is the sense of the entropy notion? Implications for molecular physical chemistry. Monatshefte Für Chem—Chem Monthly 152:871–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00706-021-02803-w
Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsch L, Gaffney O, Ludwig C (2015) The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. Anthropocene Rev 2:81–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785
Steffen W, Crutzen PJ, McNeill JR (2007) The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature. Ambio 36:614–621. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447
Steffen W, Rockström J, Richardson K, Lenton TM, Folke C, Liverman D, Summerhayes CP, Barnosky AD, Cornell SE, Crucifix M, Donges JF, Fetzer I, Lade SJ, Scheffer M, Winkelmann R, Schellnhuber HJ (2018) Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:8252–8259. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115
Stephan G (2022) Circular economy: illusion or first step towards a sustainable economy: a physico-economic perspective. Sustainability 14:4778. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084778
Stoll-Kleemann S, O’Riordan T, Jaeger CC (2001) The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: evidence from Swiss focus groups. Glob Environ Change 11:107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00061-3
Stubenvoll M, Neureiter A (2021) Fight or flight: how advertising for air travel triggers moral disengagement. Environ Commun 15:765–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1899956
Sultana F (2023) Whose growth in whose planetary boundaries? Decolonising planetary justice in the Anthropocene. Geo: Geogr Environ 10:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/geo2.128
Tilsted JP, Bjørn A, Majeau-Bettez G, Lund JF (2021) Accounting matters: revisiting claims of decoupling and genuine green growth in Nordic countries. Ecol Econ 187:107101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107101
United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1). United Nations. https://doi.org/10.1201/b20466-7
Valenzuela F, Böhm S (2017) Against wasted politics: a critique of the circular economy. Ephemera: Theory Polit Organ 17:23–60
Vandeventer JS, Cattaneo C, Zografos C (2019) A degrowth transition: pathways for the degrowth niche to replace the capitalist-growth regime. Ecol Econ 156:272–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.10.002
Ward JD, Sutton PC, Werner AD, Costanza R, Mohr SH, Simmons CT (2016) Is decoupling GDP growth from environmental impact possible? PLoS ONE 11:e0164733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164733
Wiedmann T, Lenzen M, Keyßer LT, Steinberger JK (2020) Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nat Commun 11:3107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y
Worldometers.info. (2022) World Population by Year. Retrieved May 29, 2022, from https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/
Xiong S, Wang K, Zhang L, Xiao H (2023) “I” get license but “we” keep consistent: the role of self-construal in subsequent pro-environmental decision. Curr Psychol 42:14886–14902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02773-0
Zaman A (2022) Zero-waste: a new sustainability paradigm for addressing the global waste problem. In: ThE Vision Zero handbook. Springer International Publishing, Cham pp. 1–24
Zeng Y, Maxwell S, Runting RK, Venter O, Watson JEM, Carrasco LR (2020) Environmental destruction not avoided with the sustainable development goals. Nat Sustain 3:795–798. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0555-0
Zink T, Geyer R (2017) Circular economy rebound. J Ind Ecol 21:593–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12545
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The author is solely responsible for the conception and writing of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by the author.
Informed consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by the author.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Eickhoff, H. The appeal of the circular economy revisited: on track for transformative change or enabler of moral licensing?. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11, 301 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02815-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02815-x
- Springer Nature Limited