In recent years, the circular economy has become a guiding principle in industrial and environmental policies. But how good is it really? The definition of a circular economy is unclear and lacks substance, according to a team of researchers from Lund University and the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. It risks becoming counterproductive, unless we stop referring to it as a panacea for all kinds of environmental problems.
The circular economy has become a well-known and recognised model among businesses, regions, cities and NGOs worldwide – from China and Latin America to the EU and the USA. However, what is less discussed is that the model has received a great deal of criticism from both practitioners and researchers.
Researchers have now compiled these criticisms:
“In conclusion, criticism of the circular economy does not challenge the concept of circularity”, says Hervé Corvellec, principal author of the study.
Rather, it is a case of how the supposed benefits are based on inconsistencies, an incomplete picture, hidden assumptions, agendas and unclear consequences. These are the questions we have to ask ourselves: how do we know that a circular solution is good for the environment? Who benefits from it and who does not? Will it phase out the linear economy – extract, produce, consume, discard?
Hervé Corvellec and the other researchers behind the compilation propose a more modest circular economy, which is not presented as a panacea but as a real solution to concrete problems.
“Clarity is required regarding precisely what type of circularity it applies and what the conflicting objectives are”, he concludes.
###
Journal of Industrial Ecology
Critiques of the circular economy