<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Transition to a Sustainable Circular Society: More than Just Resource Efficiency

Martin Calisto Friant, Walter J V Vermeulen, Roberta Salomone

► To cite this version:

Martin Calisto Friant, Walter J V Vermeulen, Roberta Salomone. Transition to a Sustainable Circular Society: More than Just Resource Efficiency. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 2023, 10.1007/s43615-023-00272-3. hal-04124863

HAL Id: hal-04124863

https://hal.science/hal-04124863

Submitted on 11 Jun 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Transition to a Sustainable Circular Society: More than Just Resource Efficiency

Martin Calisto Friant¹,² ID · Walter J. V. Vermeulen¹ ID · Roberta Salomone³ ID

Received: 21 October 2022 / Accepted: 7 May 2023

© The Author(s) 2023

## Abstract

While the conceptual underpinnings of the circular economy (CE) date back to the 1970s, the concept has recently become a major discourse in contemporary sustainability debates. The idea of CE, as it is now understood, is thus rather new and remains in conceptual development. Moreover, it is a contested concept with many different circular visions competing in the discursive sphere. Many researchers have evidenced that dominant CE propositions focus on technocentric solutions and do not address crucial social, political, and ecological implications. This opinion paper seeks to help address this gap by going to the root of the CE metaphor and asking: What do circles, cycles, and flows mean for an economy and a society? To answer this question, this article unpacks the idea of cycles, loops, and flows by analysing what socio-ecological cycles are most relevant for sustainability and circularity. It thus finds a set of seven cycles that are key to better understanding CE and its relation to human and planetary well-being (biogeochemical, ecosystem, resource, power, wealth, knowledge, and care cycles). This article then analyses how and whether dominant CE discourses currently address these cycles. This paper proposes the idea of a circular society as an umbrella concept that can help us better address the critical ecological, social, and political implications of a circularity transition. Moreover, this article develops a set of interrelated strategies to operationalise the circular society concept. This paper thus hopes to contribute to expanding the imaginary regarding the concept of circularity that can help the cross-pollination of ideas, solutions, and approaches to face the manyfold socio-ecological challenges of the twenty-first century.

**Keywords** Circular economy · Circular society · Sustainability · Socio-ecological cycles · Degrowth

## Introduction

The concept of a circular economy (CE) has been proposed as a solution to the multifaceted socio-ecological crises that humanity faces in the twenty-first century by various academics (e.g. Stahel [1]), public institutions (e.g. European Commission [2]), and private organisations (e.g. Ellen MacArthur Foundation [3]). These proponents expect many benefits from the implementation of CE practices, such as reduced resource scarcity and

<footnote>Extended author information available on the last page of the article</footnote>
environmental pollution, as well as economic revitalisation and “green jobs” in recovery sectors [1, 4, 5]. However, the CE concept is facing many challenges and limitations to reach those ambitions [6–8].

The use of the CE concept grew exponentially in academic, policy, and business sectors in the last decade, but it is still very much in construction and evolution [5, 9, 10]. There is hence much divergence between different circular economy and society perspectives. Researchers have found 120 different definitions [11] and 38 different Rs (value retention options such as reduce, reduce, recycle) in the literature [12].<fnref n="1" /> The mix of widespread support and enthusiasm for the CE with the lack of conceptual clarity and consistency has led some academics to call it an “essentially contested concept” [13]. As with other essentially contested concepts, various actors compete to influence the discourse on the CE for their specific objectives and promote an interpretation of the CE which fits with their political, social, and economic agendas [13, 14].

It has also been argued that many of these actors have chosen to use a “deliberately vague, but uncontroversial” discourse on the CE as a strategy to gain widespread support in the short term (Lazarevic and Valve [15], p60). Mainstream CE propositions are often depoliticised and do not address crucial sustainability implications of CE, such as how the benefits and costs of a CE transition are distributed, who controls CE technologies and patents, who decides on the shape, form, and policies for a CE transition, and what are the overall social and environmental impacts of CE proposals. Dominant CE visions thus often neglect key issues and cycles related to wealth, power, care, race, gender, class, planetary boundaries, ecosystem limits, and democracy.

This opinion paper seeks to help address those gaps by going to the root of the CE metaphor and asking: what do circles, cycles, and flows mean for an economy and a society? To answer this question, this opinion piece is based on a collection of thoughts, insights, and ideas from 4 years of research, case study analysis, and critical literature review on sustainability and CE carried out within the CRESTING project.<fnref n="2" /> This allowed us to unpack the idea of cycles, loops, or flows and analyse the many cycles, loops, and flows that are relevant to a circular society transition.<fnref n="3" /> This paper then analyses which of these cycles are currently addressed or disregarded by dominant CE discourses. This article proposes the idea of a circular society as an umbrella concept that can help us better address crucial ecological, social, and political implications of a circularity transition. Moreover, it develops a set of interrelated strategies to operationalise the circular society concept. This opinion paper concludes by proposing new avenues for research on circularity to better address the full complexity of the manyfold socio-ecological challenges of the twenty-first century. This opinion piece thus hopes to contribute to an expansion of the imaginary regarding the concept of circularity that

<footnote n="1">¹ This paper follows the value-retention options (also called R-hierarchy, R-imperatives or simply R's) established by Reike, Vermeulen, and Witjes (2018): R0 refuse, R1 reduce, R2 reuse/resell, R3 repair, R4 refurbish, R5 remanufacture, R6 re-purpose, R7 recycle materials, R8 recover energy, R9 re-mine.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² The CRESTING project seeks to analyse the sustainability implications of a CE transition in a broad range of different geographic and economic settings (see https://cresting.hull.ac.uk/): It received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 765198.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ The 7-cycle framework described in this article was also presented at 10 conferences and workshops in various countries and regions (including Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Japan, Quebec, and Peru). This allowed us to share, discuss, and validate the framework with many academics and practitioners working on CE and sustainability.</footnote>
can help the cross-pollination of ideas, solutions, and approaches to face our most pressing sustainability challenges.

# The Importance of Seven Socio-ecological Cycles to Understand Circularity

Human societies and our planet function through a wide diversity of cycles and flows. While there are countless socio-ecological cycles and flows, the literature on sustainability can help us find the most relevant ones in relation to the manyfold CE challenges identified in the introduction. By critically reviewing and reflecting on decades of literature on CE and sustainability, we have found seven socio-ecological cycles, which can help us understand what circularity means in relation to human and planetary well-being:

1. Biogeochemical cycles of the Earth

2. Ecosystem cycles

3. Resource cycles of materials and energy

4. Political cycles of power

5. Economic cycles of wealth, capital, and money

6. Knowledge cycle of technology, information, and education

7. Social cycles of care

It is worth noting that these seven cycles are deeply interrelated, interconnected, and interdependent and are thus best understood as a holistic and integrated framework rather than as seven separate and segmented elements (see Fig. 1). The following section will briefly describe and examine the current state of each of these cycles to better understand their relevance for CE and sustainability research and practice.

## Biogeochemical Cycles of the Earth

The Earth functions through many complex biogeochemical cycles such as the water, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, sulphur, and phosphorus cycles [16]. These cycles lead to the circulation and transformation of matter and energy on planet Earth through various biological and geological processes, such as transpiration, erosion, wind circulation, ocean currents, and the movement of continental plates [17]. By doing so, they ensure that energy and materials are available to different ecosystems and organisms throughout the Earth. These cycles also ensure the stability of global weather patterns and maintain the integrity of the Earth's atmosphere and ozone layer [17]. Life on Earth thus depends on these cycles, and maintaining their effective circulation is thereby imperative. Yet, our societal system is seriously disrupting all of the above cycles, especially the carbon cycle, which is one of the leading causes of climate change, but also the water, phosphorus, and nitrogen cycles, which are affecting key ecosystems and reducing our ability to produce sufficient food [18–20].

## Ecosystem Cycles

Biodiversity and natural ecosystems also work through cycles that allow for the continuous reproduction and regeneration of life [6]. Energy flows through ecosystems, entering
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Seven key socio-ecological cycles (the red, blue, and green loops around the figure represent bio-physical cycles, while the four circles in the middle represent social cycles. All the cycles intersect one another to reflect their multiple interconnections, interdependencies, and interactions)</figcaption></figure>

first as sunlight via photosynthetic organisms such as plants, algae, and phytoplankton and succeeding through the different trophic levels of the food web [21].<fnref n="4" /> Nutrients are thereby continuously cycled in natural ecosystems in a regenerative manner as the waste of one specie is food for another<fnref n="5" /> [22].

These ecosystem cycles provide vital functions and services that enable the existence and reproduction of life and human societies, such as plant pollination, flood regulation, water purification, soil formation, disaster risk reduction, climate adaptation, and carbon sequestration [17, 23]. The health and balance of ecosystem cycles thereby fosters socio-ecological resilience and flourishing [17]. However, there is currently a severe weakening and collapse of biodiversity and ecosystem functions due to human over-extraction of

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="4">⁴ It is worth noting that ecosystems in the deep sea, where no sunlight can penetrate, obtain energy from hydrogen sulfide near hydrothermal vents rather than from sunlight.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ However, it is worth noting that natural ecosystems are not perfectly circular because available energy dissipates in each trophic level (typically 90% is thus “lost”). Thus, biological system cannot continuously cycle energy and materials without the continuous inflow of additional energy from the sun ⁶.</footnote>
natural resources, habitat destruction, industrial pollution, deforestation, climate change, the introduction of invasive species and genetically modified organisms, etc. [20, 24, 25]. The current rate of species extinction is 100 to 1000 times the baseline rate [16], and only about 50% of the Earth's terrestrial natural ecosystems remain in relatively healthy conditions [26]. We are thus in the midst of what many scientists have called the “sixth mass extinction event” [27, 28].

## Resource Cycles of Materials and Energy

Resource cycles bring materials and energy into human economies. After being extracted, processed, and consumed, resources are cycled through various recovery loops such as repair, reuse, remanufacture, and recycle [10, 29]. At their end-of-use, resources are cycled back to nature either by being burnt and dissipated into the atmosphere, by being placed into landfills, or by being thrown into the environment [30–32].

Waste that is not sustainably cycled can accumulate in natural ecosystems and cause a degradation of human and planetary health [33]. This occurs when there is a lack of effective solid and liquid waste treatment and recovery or an excess of pollution (i.e. when pollution exceeds the ability of the biosphere to assimilate it or exceeds safe emission levels for human health) [34, 35]. These cycles can also be disrupted by the over-extraction of renewable resources beyond their replenishing rates, such as the overfishing of marine resources, the overdrafting of water resources, the unsustainable management of forests, or the over-tilling of agricultural soils [36–38]. Similarly, sustainability problems can arise when non-renewable resources like ores (iron, copper, nickel, aluminium, etc.) and non-metallic minerals (marble, gravel, sand, etc.) are over-extracted and not recycled back into the economy [1, 35, 39]. Finally, unsustainable resource flows can arise when resources are lost due to mismanagement. This happens when resources are wasted before they are used due to losses in storage and transportation [40]. Accounting for all of the above, the global economy currently sustainably cycles only about 8% of its total resource use [24, 41]; humanity could thereby run into critical resource shortages and overshoot key ecosystem boundaries in the coming decades [42–44].

## Political Cycles of Power

Laws and institutions shape and determine how power circulates through human societies. Decisions and authority can thus flow from the top down or bottom up depending on the established governance models [45]. Different institutions maintain a balanced flow in the distribution of power between the different branches of government (executive, legislative, and judiciary) and between the different scales of government (municipalities, regional governments, national states, intergovernmental organizations etc.). A balance of power is also maintained in the cycles of power that occur during elections for local, regional, and national representatives. Power also flows between the public and private sectors beyond elections, with various lobbying mechanisms, multi-stakeholder platforms, participatory bodies, and public–private partnerships shaping how policies are developed and implemented [46].

Unsustainable cycles of power can arise when citizens lose the ability to democratically control their state due to the power of wealthy economic “elites” or of entrenched political elites (or a mixture of both, as political and economic elites, are often hard to distinguish from one another due to the many “revolving doors” between high level public and private institutions) [47, 48]. Many academics have argued that the balance of political power is
currently under threat due to the large inequalities that have risen both locally and globally and due to the lack of meaningful citizen participation in decision-making through democratic institutions and processes [49–51]. A broad range of mechanisms exist to maintain a democratic flow of power that benefits all citizens, such as participatory budgeting systems, referendums, citizen assemblies, citizen juries, deliberative polling, and elections [52–55]. These and other policies, such as the respect of political and socio-economic human rights, the creation of fair and independent judicial systems, and the promotion of free and plural media, help in the development of pluralist and inclusive institutions that ensure a fair, democratic, and balanced flow of power within human societies [56].

## Economic Cycles of Wealth, Capital, and Money

Wealth, capital, and money flow and cycle through an economy, continuously shifting hands between governments, firms, NGOs, individuals, etc. This flow is an essential element of an economy's provisioning and distribution system [57, 58]. When monetary wealth accumulates too much in certain hands, it can generate unsustainable inequalities that prevent the economy from running for the benefit of society as a whole [47, 50, 59]. The same is true for wealth in the form of private property, especially private property in the means of production (ownership of companies, technologies, tools, and natural resources), as well as the private property of land and housing. [60]

The fields of Marxist political economy and political ecology have contributed significantly to the study of the circulation of capital. They have pointed out fundamental contradictions in capitalist societies, which lead wealth and capital to over-accumulate in a few hands and to destroy the natural ecosystems on which they depend [61–63]. Many communist, socialist, and anarchist scholars have thus argued that any level of private accumulation and ownership of means of production inherently leads to the exploitation of people and natural ecosystems [51, 61, 63–65]. In fact, the accumulation of capital, money, and private property in a few private hands not only generates unsustainable inequalities in the use of essential resources but also threatens the political and economic stability of a society and the freedom of its citizens [56, 66, 67].

Our economies are currently faced with a highly unsustainable accumulation of capital as the top 10% of the global population own 76% of global wealth while the bottom 50% own just 2% [68]. Various policy mechanisms can be used to counteract this inequality and ensure that wealth is fairly and sustainably circulated throughout the economy. These policies include property taxes, inheritance taxes, and taxes on financial transactions as well as redistributive policies such as universal basic incomes, job guarantee programmes, and the provision of free and quality public goods and services like housing, healthcare, education, water, energy, and social security [50, 69, 70]. In addition to this, democratic worker control over companies and workplaces through unions, cooperatives, and community-owned enterprises can help better distribute wealth within the Economy [60, 64, 71, 72].

## Knowledge Flows of Technology, Information, and Education

Modern civilisations are built upon the knowledge and technologies of over 300,000 years of human history. Our societies rest upon centuries of technical inventions, from the wheel, and the printing press, to the windmill and the internet. We also rely on spiritual, artistic, and social inventions such as philosophy, music, schools, and democratic institutions. The flow of human knowledge and technology through writing, education, travel, research, and
storytelling can be a significant fuel for the emancipation and flourishing of humankind through history [73].

Yet, overly stringent patent and intellectual property laws and the privatisation and com-
modification of research, knowledge, and technology can limit the ability of all humans
to share and equally benefit from new technical and societal innovations [48, 74, 75]. The
accumulation of patents and technologies in certain countries, companies, universities, or
individuals can threaten the free and open sharing of ideas, which prevents the fair and
democratic balance of power between different peoples.

Policies and practices that encourage open-source and transparent sharing of informa-
tion and technologies as well as free quality public education, from pre-school to univer-
sity, can help circulate knowledge in more sustainable and inclusive manners [76, 77].
Transdisciplinary teaching and research approaches such as participatory action research
can also help democratise knowledge flows by empowering marginalised and vulnerable
people in the creation, ownership, and dissemination of knowledge [78–80]. This democ-
ratisation of knowledge cycles can also be achieved through pluriversal approaches to sci-
ence that break the ivory tower of western academic disciplines and embrace other forms
of knowledge-making and world-making such as indigenous education, technological, and
spiritual traditions [81, 82].

Social Cycles of Care

Essential cycles of care occur every day as people share love, affection, energy, and time with their family, friends, communities, and ecosystems. These cycles of care are often invisible and un-valued in current societies and are typically performed by women, racial-ized people, ethnic minorities, and other historically marginalized groups [83–85]. Yet care is a fundamental cornerstone of human civilisation that ensures the health and reproduction of life. Care cycles are responsible for the well-being and education of children, the feeding and nourishing of most of humanity, the regeneration of vital ecosystems, the protection of biodiversity, the maintenance of people’s physical and mental health, etc. [86–88].

Human societies can face major crises of socio-ecological health and well-being when these cycles of care stop by being commoditised, by neglect, by lack of free time, or by lack of funding for social services, safety nets, and environmental regeneration [83, 89, 90]. Moreover, care is vital for societal resilience towards disasters. Strengthening social and community relations of care can thus be a crucial strategy to face the manyfold socio-ecological impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss, such as hurricanes, floods, mass migration, sea-level rise, and heat waves [91].

What Do These Seven Socio-ecological Cycles Tell Us About Circularity
and sustainability?

This section will first discuss the importance and interrelated nature of all the above cycles
to better understand the full complexity of current socio-ecological challenges. It will then
analyse which of these cycles are currently addressed or disregarded by mainstream CE lit-
erature and what this entails for the sustainability, scientific validity, social relevance, and
political legitimacy of dominant CE policies and practices.
Addressing All Relevant Cycles and Flows with a Holistic View of Circularity

All the above cycles are interrelated and should not be considered in isolation. This is shown in Fig. 1, as all cycles overlap with one another and influence each other in multiple ways. For example, a failure in care cycles due to a lack of support for indigenous forms of land tenure can increase the deforestation of vital ecosystems and weaken ecological and biogeochemical cycles (especially carbon, water, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycles). Similarly, a failure in wealth cycles due to the over-accumulation of capital in the hands of fossil fuel corporations can shape political power cycles, so societal decisions favour the interests of that industry. This can affect the capacity of humanity to develop democratic policies to address critical biogeochemical and ecosystem cycles related to carbon, climate change, and deforestation. Addressing a problem related to any of the seven cycles thus necessitates a broad understanding of the interactions and interrelations between all cycles.

Moreover, it is worth adding that these seven cycles are a simplification of infinitely more complex planetary and societal structures; therefore, not all possible social-ecological cycles were included. Some cycles, such as the hydrogen, copper, lithium, and calcium cycles, were hence not explicitly added but are rather part of broader cycles (the resource and biogeochemical cycles). Other cycles, such as business cycles, Milankovitch orbital cycles, or spiritual cycles (such as the Buddhist rebirth cycles of samsara), were not included because they were not deemed relevant enough to the specific socio-ecological issues related to sustainability and circularity which this article addresses.

All in all, the core value of representing these seven cycles resides in helping us understand what “circularity” and “circular” flows can be about in relation to sustainability and human and planetary well-being. They help expand the imagination regarding what is and what isn’t included as a “loop”, “cycle”, “circle”, or “flow” when we talk of a “circular” economy and society. Moreover, these seven cycles are very much aligned with the well-recognised conceptions and principles of sustainability developed by Robèrt [34] and by Herman Daly [39]. Robèrt describes a sustainable society as one where “nature is not subject to systematically increasing: 1. concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust; 2. concentrations of substances produced by society; 3. degradation by physical means; and in that society; 4. human needs are met worldwide” (2002, p246). Similarly, Daly stipulates that sustainable development requires first that renewable resources are harvested at a rate below their regeneration rate; second, that waste emission rates are below the assimilative capacities of the ecosystems; and, third, that the rate of depletion of non-renewable resources, does not exceed the rate of creation of renewable substitutes (1996). Daly adds that “all economic and environmental decision-making should consider the well-being of future generations, and preserve for them the widest possible range of choices” (1996, p15). The first 3 principles in Robèrt’s and Daly’s description of sustainability are directly related to this article’s biogeochemical, ecosystem, and resource cycles, while the fourth principle that Robert and Daly describe relates to this article’s power, wealth, knowledge, and care cycles.

A central point that can be drawn from the seven socio-ecological cycles and their relation to human and planetary well-being is that sustainability crises can arise if any of these cycles are significantly altered or stop flowing in a sustainable and regenerative manner. Excessive accumulation, unsustainable exploitation, lack of effective recovery, lack of sufficient redistribution, or simply neglect can thereby lead to crucial sustainability problems and even a collapse of planetary functions and societal structures.
Moreover, many academics have demonstrated that the current capitalist system is negatively impacting all these flows and cycles [32, 66, 92].

Capitalism can be described as a linear system that continuously generates waste in terms of social injustice, poverty, alienation, exploitation, and conflicts over resources [40, 93, 94] as well as waste in terms of environmental pollution, biodiversity reduction, and disruption of biogeochemical flows and cycles [19, 32, 95].<fnref n="6" /> As Martinez-Alier points out, the growth-dependent nature of the global capitalist economy means that it depends on the continuous supply of raw materials and energy from “commodity extraction frontiers” and generates an endless supply of waste that it sends to “waste disposal frontiers” [31]. This has created a global pattern of social and environmental injustice with countless ecological distribution conflicts throughout the world and strong global movements of popular resistance and revolt against the expansion of capitalist frontiers on human and non-human nature [93, 94, 96].<fnref n="7" /> Poor communities, indigenous people, people of colour, women, LGBTI+ groups, and many more systemically marginalised people are thereby often united in their common struggle against the socio-ecological impacts of this globalised economic system [31, 97]. This conflict costs the lives of over 250 environmental and human rights defenders every year [98], and this tragic figure does not count the thousands more who die of hunger, lack of access to healthcare and sanitation, over-exposure to toxic pollution, and many other so-called “externalities” of the global capitalist economy (every year over 9 million people die of hunger [99], 2 million die due to work-related accidents and diseases [100], and over 8 million die due to air pollution [101]).

## Dominant CE Discourses and the Seven Socio-ecological Cycles

The dominant idea of a CE has grown in the discursive sphere to address many of the above global sustainability challenges. Indeed, it is proposed as a new vision to reduce waste and resource scarcity by sustainably cycling materials and energy in our economies thanks to various value retention technologies and strategies such as reduce, reuse, repair, remanufacture, recycle, and re-mine, as well as sustainable business models that close, slow, and narrow resource flows [5, 102, 103]. However, this mainstream vision of a CE only addresses the third of the seven cycles mentioned above (“the resource cycle”) and partly addresses the first (“biogeochemical”) and second (“ecosystem”) cycles. Key social and political elements, such as the democratisation of power, the redistribution of wealth, and the nurturing of caring activities, are thus typically absent from mainstream CE debates [104–107]. Research has found that policies related to CE in the Netherlands [108, 109], in Norway [110, 111], in Australia [112], in China [113], in Quebec [114], in the USA [115], in various European cities [116–121], and at the EU level [14, 15, 122, 123]

<footnote n="6">⁶ Because of these socio-ecological impacts of the linear capitalist system, some scholars call it a social and environmentally entropic system 31,93,96,130. Both social and environmental entropy can be understood as the application of the thermodynamic principle of entropy to our socio-ecological system. Entropy here is thus a measure of chaos, conflict, lack of diversity and disharmony. An increase in environmental entropy is thus a reduction of biodiversity, a reduction of available material and energy resources, greater pollution, lower resilience of ecosystems, and a disruption of biochemical flows and cycles 96,130. An increase of social entropy means an increase of social injustice, unrest, poverty, exploitation, conflicts, violence, and alienation, while a reduction of social entropy entails greater peace, equity, solidarity, reciprocity, harmony, health, democracy, and conviviality 93.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ The environmental justice atlas counts over 3500 ecological distribution conflicts to date (see https://ejatl.as.org/).</footnote>
are mainly focused on end-of-pipe approaches such as recycling innovations and recovery technologies, and do not address key social implications, nor seeks to reduce overall eco-logical footprints.

CE is also often promoted as a vehicle to decouple economic growth from environmen-tal degradation through the many eco-efficiency improvements it hopes to bring about in material and energy resource cycles [15, 124, 125]. Yet, this growth-optimist approach to CE is quite problematic from a scientific perspective, as a significant amount of aca-demic research has demonstrated that decoupling is neither happening nor likely to happen on a sufficient scale to prevent climate breakdown, resource shortages, and biodiversity collapse [126–129]. In fact, research has shown that economic growth is deeply tied to energy and resource use, and it is the main driver for the continuous expansion of the com-mmodity extraction and waste disposal frontiers [31, 38, 40, 130, 131]. Hence, by focus-ing on economic growth, regardless of actual planetary boundaries and limits, mainstream CE approaches currently lack a full understanding of the biogeochemical, ecosystem, and resource cycles described above.

All in all, mainstream CE discourses often lack a holistic vision of both social and eco-
logical cycles and remain attached to problematic assumptions about economic growth and
decoupling. This technocentric discourse on CE could end up replicating current patterns
of social and environmental unsustainability and injustice [31, 106, 132]. Addressing those
research and conceptual gaps on the topic is a timely endeavour now that the CE concept
is still relatively young and remains in conceptual development and construction. It is thus
still possible to challenge and enrich the discourse with different visions of what a CE is
about and expand the imaginary of what a fair and sustainable circular society can look
like.

Discussion and Conclusions: Towards a Circular Society

In its current dominant interpretation, the CE is neither a novel concept nor a particularly
socially or environmentally relevant one, as it often fails to address the entangled nature
of the seven flows and cycles presented in this article. While most contemporary CE dis-
courses overwhelmingly focus on material and energy flows, this is not a new area of
research and action as previous ideas, which focus on those flows, have existed for decades,
such as industrial ecology, cleaner production, industrial metabolism, and material effi-
ciency (ideas within CE1.0 and 2.0 according to Reike et al. [12]). The critical value and
importance of shrinking, slowing, and closing resource loops was indeed already stressed
by academics as far back as the 1970s [133–135], and it is a central element of the 1992
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21 [136].

If the CE is to bring any substantial innovation and contribution to the sustainability
debate, it is by bringing more than just a biophysical perspective and by integrating the
full range of cycles and flows relevant for sustainability. The CE concept could thereby
help broaden our understanding of the systemic social, material, energy, and biologi-
cal cycles that shape human and planetary well-being. By highlighting the seven cycles
presented in this paper, we hope to contribute to this conceptual development of the CE
and improve its social relevance and usefulness for sustainability debates. This particu-
larly calls attention to the need for a circular economy and society that places planetary
limits and natural cycles above economic growth; that balances cycles of political power
in democratic manners; that redistributes flows of money and wealth in fair and equitable manners; that maintains the free and open circulation of knowledge and ideas; and that ensures that care is cycled throughout society in a reciprocal and convivial manner.

In line with the above vision, many social movements and academics have started to propose a “social CE” [137], a “circular humansphere” [138], a “careful circularity” [87], a “sustainable circular society” [37], a “permacircular economy” [139], a “social CE” [140], a “convivial CE” [106], a “post-growth CE” [141], or a “circular society” [11, 112, 142–145] as more inclusive, democratic, and eco-centric approaches to circularity. Other academics maintain the use of the CE concept but add key social and environmental dimensions missing from mainstream debates [35, 104, 141, 146, 147]. These approaches address all the seven cycles described above (although they might not explicitly call them cycles, these academics include a wide range of socio-political considerations and acknowledge the biophysical limits of the Earth). However, they remain a relatively marginal part of the academic and societal discourse on the topic.

This article thus calls for more academic research and societal implementation of these inclusive and post-growth CE approaches. The idea of a *circular society* could be used as an umbrella concept that unites all these alternative circularity visions and perspectives. By putting society at the centre, circular society discourses could help break from economy-centric and capital-centric understandings of circularity and expand the imaginary towards key socio-ecological cycles and considerations. The term circular society can thus help us “re-embed” [148] circular and economic activity within a larger socio-ecological context and thereby allow us to consider crucial implications of any circularity strategy in terms of culture, environment, resource scarcity, class, gender, race, health, education, colonialism, power, technology, politics, governance, etc.

As an umbrella concept, there is no single definition or vision of a circular society; rather, it is a concept that includes a wide range of different discourses from the Global North and South alike (including circular humansphere, careful circularities, buen vivir, degrowth, voluntary simplicity, ecological swaraj, steady state economics, and the like). All in all, circular society discourses are united in their objective to create a democratic, fair, and sustainable socio-ecological system that works in harmony with the natural cycles of the biosphere to improve human and planetary well-being for current and future generations.

We propose that a circular society can operate through various interrelated strategies including, but not limited to, the following:

* Shrinking socio-ecological cycles: reducing the absolute size of flows through socio-cultural changes for simpler and more convivial lifestyles as well as design and technical changes that reduce or substitute materials (often with a “low-tech” perspective), and thereby shrink the overall societal resource/economic throughput. [44, 82, 106, 139, 141, 149–153]

* Slowing socio-ecological cycles: maintaining products as long as possible through product life extension, reusing, leasing, servicing, and focusing on functionality, access, and stewardship instead of ownership and overconsumption. [1, 5, 10, 103, 146, 154–156]

* Shortening socio-ecological cycles: repairing, refurbishing, remanufacturing, and repurposing goods following a cascading value retention hierarchy to prevent resources from becoming wastes. [12, 29, 104, 154, 157–161]
* Closing socio-ecological cycles: recovering components, materials, and embodied energy through recycling, bio-digestion, composting, urban-mining, and, as a last resort option, incineration with energy recovery [4, 9, 155, 162–166].

* Smartening socio-ecological cycles: using eco-innovations for optimum eco-efficiency and the provision of renewable energy, such as eco-design for durability, multifunctionality, upgradeability, modularity, reusability, repairability, recyclability, and electrification, as well as ICT innovations such as P2P platforms, blockchain, smart grids, big data, and industry 4.0, when they have proven socio-ecological benefits. [1, 167–174]

* Greening socio-ecological cycles: using safe, organic, and renewable natural resources and nature-based solutions while protecting, conserving, regenerating, and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity through agroecology, biomimicry, permaculture, and environmental stewardship. [20, 154, 166, 174–177]

* Democratising socio-ecological cycles: establishing democratic governance processes to ensure the equal and meaningful participation of all people in the management of resources both in the public sector (local, national and international governments) and in the private sector (enterprises and NGOs) through direct and deliberative democracy methods such as citizen assemblies, participatory budgeting, participatory design, worker unions, and cooperative ownership. [37, 59, 60, 77, 104, 138, 178–181]

* Redistributing socio-ecological cycles: ensuring a fair, equal, and just distribution of resources, wealth, and power, especially considering the unmet needs of the most vulnerable citizens of the Earth, through progressive taxation, comprehensive welfare, communal ownership, and open-source knowledge and technologies, etc. [50, 87, 139, 149, 152, 179, 182–184]

* Re-localising socio-ecological cycles: fostering local autonomy and sovereignty in the provision of essential goods and services, promoting local employment and reducing unnecessary transport costs and industrial delocalisation (and thus preventing competition for low labour and environmental standards) by producing as close to consumption areas as sustainably possible. [35, 44, 106, 174, 179, 181, 185, 186]

* Revaluing socio-ecological cycles: changing what we ascribe value to through socio-cultural and spiritual transformation by shifting away from an anthropocentric, consumerist, nationalist, hypercompetitive, hierarchical, and patriarchal plutocracy to a world-view based on ecocentrism, pluralism, solidarity, reciprocity and care for all forms of life, through a broad re-education of society both on systemic socio-ecological cycles and on planetary values and ethics. [86, 87, 140, 179, [187–190]]

To create these ten strategies, we focused on building and expanding on CE research with further sustainability and degrowth literature to add elements that are not always considered when implementing CE interventions. We also focused on developing actions and practices that could comprehensively address all the seven socio-ecological cycles presented in this article. Therefore, some strategies are directly related to a specific socio-ecological cycle. Care cycles are directly linked to re-localising and revaluing strategies. Resource and biogeochemical cycles are connected to slowing, shrinking, shortening, and closing strategies. Knowledge cycles are most related to smartening. Ecosystem cycles are linked to greening strategies. Power cycles are directly related to democratising strategies, and wealth cycles are connected to redistributing strategies.

Beyond these specific relationships, which helped us develop these ten strategies, all seven socio-ecological cycles are fundamentally relevant to all ten strategies presented above. When implementing interventions in any of the above strategies, it is thus crucial
to consider their impact on all socio-ecological cycles. For instance, an intervention seek-
ing to slow socio-ecological cycles by improving the reuse and servicing of products and
services should also consider aspects related to care, power, and wealth to expand access to
these services for the most vulnerable sectors of the population and support local produc-
tion activities and community-based tool-sharing networks.

Moreover, each of the ten strategies described above is deeply interrelated, as with the seven socio-ecological cycles, interventions in one of these areas can affect the other, and thereby, a comprehensive, fair, and sustainable circularity transition must include actions in all these strategies. For example, shrinking, greening, or smartening socio-ecological cycles without redistributing and democratising could lead to inequalities in access to key tools and resources needed for a sustainable circularity transition.

To conclude, our description of a *circular society* and its core components and operat-
ing strategies is best understood as the beginning of an open academic debate on the topic.
A debate that could help scholars and practitioners expand their understanding of circular-
ity and embrace a plurality of different discourses and ways of implementing the concept.
Although their conceptual underpinnings stretch far back in history, the circular economy
and society concepts are still relatively young and remain to be further developed within
and beyond academia. Therefore, further research and practice of these concepts is highly
encouraged, especially through inter and transdisciplinary approaches that include a wide
range of perspectives and societal actors. The different strategies and cycles we propose
could thus be further researched, expanded, amended, and criticised to construct a more
holistic, comprehensive, and systemic understanding of the topic. We hope this might help
circularity discourses and practices become more sustainable, inclusive, socially just, and
democratic.

**Acknowledgements** The authors would like to thank Laura Oers, Kaustubh Thapa, and Piero Morseletto for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper as well as Ton Markus for the illustration of the figure. The authors are also grateful for the constructive comments of the anonymous reviewers, which helped improve this piece.

**Author Contribution** All authors contributed to the study's conception and design. Literature review, data collection, and analysis were performed by Martin Calisto Friant. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Martin Calisto Friant, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Supervision and funding acquisition was performed by Walter J.V. Vermeulen and Roberta Salomone.

**Funding** This article constitutes part of the outcomes of the CRESTING (Circular Economy: Sustainability Implications and Guiding Progress) project, funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 765198.

**Data Availability** Not applicable.

**Declarations**

**Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate** Not applicable.

**Consent for Publication** Not applicable.

**Competing Interests** The authors declare no competing interests.

**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/.

## References

1. Stahel WR (2010) *The performance economy*. (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)

2. European Commission (2015) *Closing the loop - an EU action plan for the circular economy*. *European Commission COM(2015)*

3. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015) *Towards a circular economy: business rationale for an accelerated transition*

4. McDonough W, Braungart M (2002) *Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things*. (North Point Press, 2002)

5. Blomsma F, Brennan G (2017) The emergence of circular economy: a new framing around pro-longing resource productivity. J Ind Ecol 21:603–614

6. Skene KR (2018) Circles, spirals, pyramids and cubes: why the circular economy cannot work. Sustain Sci 13:479–492

7. Valenzuela F, Böhm S (2017) Against wasted politics: a critique of the circular economy. Ephemer theory Polit Organ 17:23–60

8. Millar N, McLaughlin E, Börger T (2019) The circular economy: swings and roundabouts? Ecol Econ 158:11–19

9. Winans K, Kendall A, Deng H (2017) The history and current applications of the circular economy concept. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 68:825–833

10. Antikainen R, Lazarevic D & Seppälä J (2018) Circular economy: origins and future orientations. in *Factor X Challenges, Implementation Strategies and Examples for a Sustainable Use of Natural Resources* (ed. Lehmann, H.) 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50079-9_7

11. Calisto Friant M, Vermeulen WJV & Salomone R (2020) A typology of circular economy dis-courses: navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. *Resour. Conserv. Recycl.* **161**

12. Reike D, Vermeulen WJV, Witjes S (2018) The circular economy: new or refurbished as CE 3.0? — exploring controversies in the conceptualisation of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. *Resour. Conserv. Recycl.* 135:246–264

13. Korhonen J, Nuur C, Feldmann A, Birkie SE (2018) Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. J Clean Prod 175:544–552

14. Repo P, Anttonen M, Mykkänen J, Lammi M (2018) Lack of congruence between European citi-zen perspectives and policies on circular economy. Eur J Sustain Dev 7:249–264

15. Lazarevic D, Valve H (2017) Narrating expectations for the circular economy: towards a common and contested European transition. Energy Res Soc Sci 31:60–69

16. Steffen W et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science (80-) 347:1259855–1259855

17. Folke C et al (2021) Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere. Ambio 50:834–869

18. Steffen W et al (2018) Trajectories of the earth system in the Anthropocene. *PNAS* 10–8 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115/-/DCSupplemental

19. Mayumi K, Giampietro M (2019) Reconsidering ‘circular economy’ in terms of irreversible evolu-tion of economic activity and interplay between technosphere and biosphere. Rom J Econ Forecast 22:196–206

20. Murray A, Skene K, Haynes K (2017) The circular economy: an interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. J Bus Ethics 140:369–380

21. Hanumante NC, Shastri Y, Hoadley A (2019) Assessment of circular economy for global sustain-ability using an integrated model. Resour Conserv Recycl 151:104460

22. Capra F, Jakobsen OD (2017) A conceptual framework for ecological economics based on sys-temic principles of life. Int J Soc Econ 44:831–844

23. Buchmann-Duck J, Beazley KF (2020) An urgent call for circular economy advocates to acknowl-edge its limitations in conserving biodiversity. Sci Total Environ 727:138602

24. Haas W, Krausmann F, Wiedenhofer D, Lauk C, Mayer A (2020) Spaceship earth's odyssey to a circular economy - a century long perspective. Resour Conserv Recycl 163:105076
25. Springmann M et al (2018) Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562:519-525

26. Riggio J et al (2020) Global human influence maps reveal clear opportunities in conserving Earth's remaining intact terrestrial ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol 26:4344-4356

27. Røpke I (2019) Sustainability transitions from an ecological economic perspective. Ecol Econ Soc INSEE J 2:3-8

28. Barnosky AD et al (2011) Has the Earth's sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471:51-57

29. Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S (2016) A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J Clean Prod 114:11-32

30. 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 Chang 52:131-140

31. Martinez-Alier J (2021) Mapping ecological distribution conflicts: the EJAtlas. Extr Ind Soc 8:100883

32. Rammelt C (2020) The spiralling economy: connecting Marxian theory with ecological economics. Environ Values 29:417-442

33. Morseletto P (2020) Restorative and regenerative: exploring the concepts in the circular economy. J Ind Ecol 24:763-773

34. Robèrt K-H (2002) *The natural step story: seeding a quiet revolution*. (New Society Publishers, 2002)

35. Suárez-Eiroa B, Fernández E, Méndez-Martínez G, Soto-Oñate D (2019) Operational principles of circular economy for sustainable development: linking theory and practice. J Clean Prod 214:952-961

36. Unruh G (2008) The biosphere rules. Harvard Bussiness Rev 86:111-117

37. Velenturf APM, Purnell P (2021) Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustain Prod Con- sump 27:1437-1457

38. Rammelt CF, Crisp PT (2014) A systems and thermodynamics perspective on technology in the cir- cular Economy. *Real-World Econ. Rev.* 25-40

39. Daly, H. E. *Beyond growth : the economics of sustainable development*. (Beacon Press, 1996).

40. Marín-Beltrán I et al (2022) Scientists' warning against the society of waste. Sci Total Environ 811:151359

41. Haigh L et al (2021) The Circularity Gap Report 2021. Circle Economy

42. Turner GM (2014) Is global collapse imminent? *MSSI Res. Pap.* 978 0 7340 4940 7

43. Herrington G (2021) Update to limits to growth: comparing the World3 model with empirical data. J Ind Ecol 25:614-626

44. Bihoux P (2014) L'âge des low tech : vers une civilisation techniquement soutenable. (Seuil, 2014)

45. Lawhon M, Murphy JT (2012) Socio-technical regimes and sustainability transitions: insights from political ecology. Prog Hum Geogr 36:354-378

46. Driessen PPJ, Dieperink C, van Laerhoven F, Runhaar HAC, Vermeulen WJV (2012) Towards a con- ceptual framework for the study of shifts in modes of environmental governance - experiences from the Netherlands. Environ Policy Gov 22:143-160

47. Stiglitz JE (2012) *The Price of Inequality*. (W.W. Norton & Company, 2012)

48. Frankel B (2018) *Fictions of sustainability : the politics of growth and post-capitalist futures*. (Green- meadows, 2018)

49. Sánchez-Cuenca I (2017) From a deficit of democracy to a technocratic order: the postcrisis debate on Europe. Annu Rev Polit Sci 20:351-369

50. Piketty T (2019) *Capital et idéologie*. (Seuil, 2019)

51. Löwy M (2011) *Ecosocialisme: L'Alternative Radicale a la Catastrophe Ecologique Capitaliste*. (Mille Et Une Nuits, 2011)

52. Dryzek JS et al (2019) The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science (80-) 363:1144-1146

53. Calisto Friant M (2019) Deliberating for sustainability: lessons from the Porto Alegre experiment with participatory budgeting. Int J Urban Sustain Dev 11:81-99

54. Fung A, Wright EO (2001) Deepening democracy: innovations in empowered participatory govern- ance. Polit Soc 29:5-41

55. Fishkin JS (2018) *Democracy when the people are thinking: revitalising our politics through public deliberation*. (Oxford University Press, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198820291.001.0001

56. Acemoglu D, Robinson J (2012) *Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity and poverty*. (Crown, 2012).

57. Røpke I (2016) Complementary system perspectives in ecological macroeconomics - the example of transition investments during the crisis. Ecol Econ 121:237-245
58. Fanning AL, O'Neill DW, Büchs M (2020) Provisioning systems for a good life within planetary boundaries. Glob Environ Chang 64:102135

59. Jackson T (2021) *Post Growth—Life After Capitalism*. (Wiley, 2021)

60. Felber C (2015) *Change everything: creating an economy for the common good*. (ZED Books, 2015).

61. Harvey D (2012) *Rebel cities from the right to the city to the urban revolution*. (Verso, 2012)

62. Perreault T, Bridge G, McCarthy J (2015) *The Routledge handbook of political ecology*. (Routledge, 2015)

63. Bellamy Foster J, Clark B, York R (2010) *The ecological rift: capitalism's war on the earth*. (Monthly Review Press, 2010)

64. Bookchin M (1982) *The ecology of freedom: the emergence and dissolution of hierarchy*. (Cheshire Books, 1982)

65. Albert M (2021) *No bosses: a new economy for a better world*. (Zero Books, 2021)

66. Hickel J (2021) *Less is more: how degrowth will save the world*. (Penguin Random House, 2021)

67. Kallis G (2019) *Limits: why Malthus was wrong and why environmentalists should care*. (Stanford University Press, 2019)

68. Chancel L, Piketty T, Saez E. & Zucman G (2021) *World Inequality Report 2022*

69. Hartley T, van den Bergh J, Kallis G (2020) Policies for equality under low or no growth: a model inspired by Piketty. Rev Polit Econ. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2020.1769293

70. Cosme I, Santos R, O'Neill DW (2017) Assessing the degrowth discourse: a review and analysis of academic degrowth policy proposals. J Clean Prod 149:321-334

71. Roberts J (2017) The new economy puts people and planet first. Environ Pract 19:112-114

72. Song L (2016) Enabling transformative agency: community-based green economic and workforce development in LA and Cleveland. Plan Theory Pract 17:227-243

73. Stiegler B. & Ross D (2018) *The Neganthropocene*. CCC2 Irreversibility

74. Papanek V (1972) *Design for the real world*. (Academy, 1972)

75. Zizek S, Danta C, Vardoulakis D (2008) Nature and its discontents. SubStance 37:37-72

76. Vetter A (2018) The matrix of convivial technology – assessing technologies for degrowth. J Clean Prod 197:1778-1786

77. Kerschner C, Wächter P, Nierling L, Ehlers MH (2018) Degrowth and technology: towards feasible, viable, appropriate and convivial imaginaries. J Clean Prod 197:1619-1636

78. Fals-Borda O (1987) The application of participatory action-research in latin america. Int Sociol 2:329-347

79. Vermeulen W. J. V. & Witjes S (2020) History and mapping of transdisciplinary research on sustainable development issues. In *Transdisciplinarity For Sustainability* 18, 6-26 (Routledge, 2020)

80. Escobar A (2018) *Designs for the pluriverse: radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making of worlds*. (Duke University Press, 2018)

81. Velasco-Herrejón P., Bauwens T. & Calisto Friant M (2022) Challenging dominant sustainability worldviews on the energy transition: lessons from Indigenous communities in Mexico and a plea for pluriversal technologies. *World Dev.* **150**

82. Kothari A., Salleh A., Escobar A., Demaria F. & Acosta A (2019) *Pluriverse: a post-development dictionary*. (Tulika Books, 2019)

83. Dengler C, Lang M (2021) Commoning care: feminist degrowth visions for a socio-ecological transformation. Fem Econ. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2021.1942511

84. Di Chiro G (2019) Care not growth: imagining a subsistence economy for all. Br J Polit Int Relations 21:303-311

85. Nirmal P, Rocheleau D (2019) Decolonizing degrowth in the post-development convergence: questions, experiences, and proposals from two Indigenous territories. Environ Plan E Nat Sp 2:465-492

86. Pla-Julián I, Guevara S (2019) Is circular economy the key to transitioning towards sustainable development? Challenges from the perspective of care ethics. Futures 105:67-77

87. Morrow O, Davies A (2021) Creating careful circularities: Community composting in New York City. Trans Inst Br Geogr 47:529-546

88. Rogers HA, Deutz P, Ramos TB (2021) Repairing the circular economy: public perception and participant profile of the repair economy in Hull. UK Resour Conserv Recycl 168:105447

89. Phillips ME (2020) Reconnecting with nature: an ecofeminist view of environmental management. Geogr Res 58:154-166

90. Helne T. & Hirvilammi T (2019) Having, Doing, Loving, Being: Sustainable Well-Being for a Post-Growth Society. in *Towards a Political Economy of Degrowth* (eds. CHERTKOVSKAYA, E., PAULSSON, A. & BARCA, S.) (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2019)

91. IPCC. *Climate change 2022 - impacts, adaptation and vulnerability*. Ipcc (2022).
92. Brand U et al (2021) From planetary to societal boundaries: an argument for collectively defined self-limitation. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 17:265-292

93. Biel R (2012) *The Entropy of capitalism (studies in critical social sciences)*. (Koninklijke Brill, 2012)

94. Armiero M (2021) *Wasteocene: stories from the global dump. Elements in Environmental Humanities* (Cambridge University Press, 2021). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108920322

95. Spash C. L (2020) A tale of three paradigms: realising the revolutionary potential of ecological economics. *Ecol. Econ.* **169**

96. Martinez-Alier J (2021) Circularity, entropy, ecological conflicts and LFFU. Local Environ. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1983795

97. Scheidel A. et al (2020) Environmental conflicts and defenders: a global overview. *Glob. Environ. Chang.* **63**

98. Font Line Defenders (2020) *Global Analysis 2020*

99. Holmes J (2021) *Losing 25,000 to Hunger Every Day*. (United Nations, 2021)

100. ILO (2022) World Statistic, The enormous burden of poor working conditions. (2022). Available at: http://www.ilo.org/moscow/areas-of-work/occupational-safety-and-health/WCMS_249278/lang--en/index.htm. (Accessed: 8th February 2022)

101. Vohra K et al (2021) Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem. Environ Res 195:110754

102. Stahel WR (2016) The circular economy. Nature 531:435-438

103. Bocken NMP, de Pauw I, Bakker C, van der Grinten B (2016) Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. J Ind Prod Eng 33:308-320

104. Moreau V, Sahakian M, van Griethuysen P, Vuille F (2017) Coming full circle: why social and institutional dimensions matter for the circular economy. J Ind Ecol 21:497-506

105. Clube RKM, Tennant M (2020) The Circular Economy and human needs satisfaction: promising the radical, delivering the familiar. Ecol Econ 177:106772

106. Genovese, A. & Pansera, M (2020) The circular economy at a crossroads: technocratic eco-modernism or convivial technology for social revolution? *Capital. Nature, Social*. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2020.1763414

107. Thapa K, Vermeulen WJV, Deutz P, Olayide O (2022) Ultimate producer responsibility for e-waste management-a proposal for just transition in the circular economy based on the case of used European electronic equipment exported to Nigeria. Bus Strateg Dev. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.222

108. Campbell-Johnston K, Calisto Friant M, Thapa K, Lakerveld D, Vermeulen WJV (2020) How circular is your tyre: experiences with extended producer responsibility from a circular economy perspective. J Clean Prod 270:122042

109. Calisto Friant M., Lakerveld D., Vermeulen W. J. V & Salomone R (2022) Transition to a sustainable circular plastics economy in the Netherlands : discourse and policy analysis. *Sustainability* **14**

110. Hermann RR, Pansera M (2020) Contingencies of circular economy: discourse hegemony and institutionalization in Norway. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3690601

111. Ortega Alvarado IA, Sutcliffe TE, Berker T, Pettersen IN (2021) Emerging circular economies: discourse coalitions in a Norwegian case. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 26:360-372

112. Melles G (2021) Figuring the transition from circular economy to circular society in Australia. Sustain 13:10601

113. McDowall W et al (2017) Circular economy policies in China and Europe. J Ind Ecol 21:651-661

114. Ziegler R., Compère E., Raufflet E. & Vézina M (2023) Between green economy and reformism - an exploration of circular economy and social economy policy convergence in Quebec. in *Handbook on Social Innovation and Social Policy* (eds. Sinclair, S. & Baglioni, S.) (Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 2023)

115. Berry B et al (2021) Just by design: exploring justice as a multidimensional concept in US circular economy discourse. Local Environ 0:1-17

116. Savini F (2019) The economy that runs on waste: accumulation in the circular city. J Environ Policy Plan 21:675-691

117. Calisto Friant M, Reid K, Boesler P, Vermeulen W, Salomone R (2023) Sustainable circular cities? Analysing urban circular economy policies in Amsterdam, Glasgow, and Copenhagen. Local Environ. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2023.2206643

118. Fratini CF, Georg S, Jørgensen MS (2019) Exploring circular economy imaginaries in European cities: a research agenda for the governance of urban sustainability transitions. J Clean Prod 228:974-989

119. Prendeville S, Cherim E, Bocken N (2018) Circular cities: mapping six cities in transition. Environ Innov Soc Transitions 26:171-194
120. Bassens D., Kęblowski W. & Lambert D (2020) Placing cities in the circular economy: neoliberal urbanism or spaces of socio-ecological transition? *Urban Geogr.* 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1788312

121. Krähmer K (2021) Are green cities sustainable? A degrowth critique of sustainable urban development in Copenhagen. Eur Plan Stud 29:1272–1289

122. words versus actions (2021) Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W. J. V. & Salomone, R. Analysing European Union circular economy policies. Sustain Prod Consum 27:337–353

123. Palm E., Hasselbalch J., Holmberg K. & Nielsen T. D (2021) Narrating plastics governance: policy narratives in the European plastics strategy. *Env. Polit.* 1–21 https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1915020

124. D'Amato D, Droste N, Winkler KJ, Toppinen A (2019) Thinking green, circular or bio: eliciting researchers' perspectives on a sustainable economy with Q method. J Clean Prod 230:460–476

125. Giampietro M, Funtowicz SO (2020) From elite folk science to the policy legend of the circular economy. Environ Sci Policy 109:64–72

126. Parrique T. et al 2019 Decoupling debunked: evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability

127. Hickel J, Kallis G (2019) Is green growth possible? *New Polit.* Econ. 0:1–18

128. Haberl H. et al (2020) A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesising the insights. *Environ. Res. Lett.* 15

129. Jackson T, Victor PA (2019) Unraveling the claims for (and against) green growth. Science 366:950–951

130. Giampietro M (2019) On the circular bioeconomy and decoupling: implications for sustainable growth. Ecol Econ 162:143–156

131. Wiedmann T, Lenzen M, Keyßer LT, Steinberger JK (2020) Scientists’ warning on affluence Nat Commun 11:1–10

132. Mah A (2021) Future-proofing capitalism: the paradox of the circular economy for plastics. Glob Environ Polit 21:121–142

133. Commoner B (1971) *The closing circle: nature, man, and technology.* (Bantam Books, 1971).

134. Meadows D., Meadows D., Behrens W. & Randers J (1972) *The limits to growth: a report for the club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind.* (Universe Books, 1972)

135. Boulding K. E (1966) The economics of the coming spaceship earth. in *Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy* (ed. Jarrett, H.) 3–14 (Resources for the Future/Johns Hopkins University Press, 1966)

136. UN. *Rio Declaration on Environment and Development*. UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (Vol. I) 14 June 1992 (The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992).

137. Social Circular Economy (2017) Social Circular Economy – opportunities for people, planet and profit

138. Schröder P., Lemille A. & Desmond P (2020) Making the circular economy work for human development. *Resour. Conserv. Recycl.* **156**

139. Arnsperger C. & Bourg D (2017) *Écologie intégrale : pour une société permacirculaire*. (PUF, 2017)

140. Clube RKM, Tennant M (2023) What would a human-centred ‘social’ Circular Economy look like? Drawing from Max-Neef’s Human-Scale Development proposal. J Clean Prod 383:135455

141. Bauwens T (2021) Are the circular economy and economic growth compatible? A case for post-growth circularity. Resour Conserv Recycl 175:105852

142. Jaeger-Erben M, Jensen C, Hofmann F, Zwiers J (2021) There is no sustainable circular economy without a circular society. Resour Conserv Recycl 168:105476

143. Jaeger-Erben M. & Hofmann F (2020) *From Take-Make-Dispose to a Circular Society: introduction of a new vision in six propositions*

144. Leipold S., Weldner K. & Hohl M (2021) Do we need a 'circular society' ? Competing narratives of the circular economy in the French food sector. 187

145. Calisto Friant M (2022) From circular economy to circular society: analysing circularity discourses and policies and their sustainability implications. (Utrecht University, 2022). https://doi.org/10.33540/1562

146. Hobson K, Lynch N (2016) Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy: radical social transformation in a resource-scarce world. Futures 82:15–25

147. Temesgen A., Storsletten V. & Jakobsen O (2019) Circular economy – reducing symptoms or radical change? *Philos. Manag.* 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-019-00112-1

148. Polanyi K (1957) *The great transformation. The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time*. (Beacon Press, 1957)
149. Ashby A, Callegaro AM, Adeyeye K, Granados M (2019) The spiral economy: a socially progressive circular economy model? in 67–94 (Springer. Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15066-2_5

150. Latouche, S (2018) The path to degrowth for a sustainable society. in *Factor X Challenges, Implementation Strategies and Examples for a Sustainable Use of Natural Resources* (ed. Lehmann, H.) 277–284 (Springer, Cham, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50079-9_17

151. Alexander S (2015) *Sufficiency economy: enough, for everyone, forever*. (Simplicity Institute Publishing, 2015)

152. Schröder P, Anantharaman M, Anggraeni K., Foxon T. J. & Barber J (2019) Introduction: Sustainable lifestyles, livelihoods and the circular economy. in *The Circular Economy and the Global South* 3–22 (Routledge, 2019). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429434006-1

153. Ness D (2020) Beyond circularity. Do we need to shrink and share? in *Social and Cultural Aspects of the Circular Economy* (ed. Pál, V.) 194–208 (Routledge, 2022). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003255246-12

154. Delannoy I (2017) *L'économie symbiotique : régénérer la planète, l'économie et la société*. (Actes Sud, 2017)

155. Merli R, Preziosi M, Acampora A (2018) How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 178:703–722

156. Goedkoop M. J., van Halen C. J. G., te Riele H. R. M. & Rommens P. J. M (1999) *Product Service Systems, Ecological and Economic Basics*

157. Aurez V., Georgeault L., Stahel W. R. & Bourg D (2016) *Économie circulaire : système économique et finitude des ressources*. (De Boeck supérieur, 2016)

158. Allwood JM, Ashby MF, Gutowski TG, Worrell E (2011) Material efficiency: a white paper. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:362–381

159. Campbell-Johnston K, Vermeulen WJV, Reike D, Brullot S (2020) The circular economy and cascading: towards a framework. Resources, Conservation and Recycling: X 7:100038

160. Geissdoerfer M, Morioka SN, de Carvalho MM, Evans S (2018) Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. J Clean Prod 190:712–721

161. Milios L (2018) Advancing to a Circular Economy: three essential ingredients for a comprehensive policy mix. Sustain Sci 13:861–878

162. Lorenz U., Sverdrup H. U. & Ragnarsdottir K. V (2018) Global megatrends and resource use – a systemic reflection. in *Factor X Challenges, Implementation Strategies and Examples for a Sustainable Use of Natural Resources* (ed. Lehmann, H.) 31–43 (Springer, Cham, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50079-9_3

163. Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken NMP, Hultink EJ (2017) The Circular Economy – a new sustainability paradigm? J Clean Prod 143:757–768

164. Batista L, Bourlakis M, Smart P, Maull R (2018) In search of a circular supply chain archetype—a content-analysis-based literature review. Prod Plan Control 29:438–451

165. Prieto-Sandoval V, Jaca C, Ormazabal M (2018) Towards a consensus on the circular economy. J Clean Prod 179:605–615

166. Geisendorf S, Pietrulla F (2018) The circular economy and circular economic concepts—a literature analysis and redefinition. Thunderbird Int Bus Rev 60:771–782

167. de Jesus A, Antunes P, Santos R, Mendonça S (2019) Eco-innovation pathways to a circular economy: envisioning priorities through a Delphi approach. J Clean Prod 228:1494–1513

168. Zink T, Geyer R (2017) Circular Economy Rebound. J Ind Ecol 21:593–602

169. Lüdeke-Freund F, Gold S, Bocken NMP (2019) A review and typology of circular economy business model patterns. J Ind Ecol 23:36–61

170. Kalmykova Y, Sadagopan M, Rosado L (2018) Circular economy – from review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resour Conserv Recycl 135:190–201

171. Garcia-Muiña FE et al (2019) Identifying the equilibrium point between sustainability goals and circular economy practices in an industry 4.0 manufacturing context using eco-design. Soc. Sci. 8:241

172. den Hollander MC, Bakker CA, Hultink EJ (2017) Product design in a circular economy: development of a typology of key concepts and terms. J Ind Ecol 21:517–525

173. Frenken K (2017) Political economies and environmental futures for the sharing economy. *Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.* 375

174. Tate WL, Bals L, Bals C, Foerstl K (2019) Seeing the forest and not the trees: learning from nature's circular economy. Resour Conserv Recycl 149:115–129

175. D'Amato D et al (2017) Green, circular, bio economy: a comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. J Clean Prod 168:716–734
176. Korhonen J, Honkasalo A, Seppälä J (2018) Circular economy: the concept and its limitations. Ecol Econ 143:37–46

177. Geiser K (2001) *Materials matter: toward a sustainable materials policy*. (MIT Press, 2001)

178. Bookchin M (1971) *Post-scarcity anarchism*. (Black Rose Books, 1971)

179. Latouche S (2009) *Farewell to growth*. (Polity, 2009)

180. Pansera M., Genovese A. & Ripa M (2021) Politicising Circular Economy: what can we learn from Responsible Innovation? J. Responsible Innov. 1–7 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.1923315

181. Ede S (2016) *The real circular economy: how relocalising production with not-for-profit business models helps build resilient and prosperous societies*

182. Hobson K (2019) ‘Small stories of closing loops’: social circularity and the everyday circular economy. *Clim. Change forthcomin*

183. Jackson T (2016) Prosperity without growth: foundations for the economy of tomorrow. (Routledge, 2016)

184. Caillé A (2019) Convivialism. in *Pluriverse: a post-development dictionary* (eds. Kothari, A., Salleh, A., Escobar, A., Demaria, F. & Acosta, A.) 340 (Tulika Books, 2019)

185. Hopkins R (2008) The Transition Handbook From oil dependency to local resilience. (Green Books, 2008)

186. Trainer, T. & Alexander, S. The simpler way: envisioning a sustainable society in an age of limits. *real-world Econ. Rev.* **87**, 247–260 (2019).

187. Zwiers J, Jaeger-Erben M, Hofmann F (2020) Circular literacy. A knowledge-based approach to the circular economy. Cult. Organ. 26:121–141

188. James P (2022) Re-embedding the circular Economy in Circles of Social Life: beyond the self-repairing (and still-rapacious) economy. Local Environ. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2022.2040469

189. Rask N (2022) An intersectional reading of circular economy policies: towards just and sufficiency-driven sustainabilities. *Local Environ*. 1–17 https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2022.2040467

190. van der Velden M (2021) ‘Fixing the World One Thing at a Time’: community repair and a sustainable circular economy. J Clean Prod 304:127151

## Authors and Affiliations

Martin Calisto Friant<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> ID • Walter J. V. Vermeulen<fnref n="1" /> ID • Roberta Salomone<fnref n="3" /> ID

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Martin Calisto Friant
p.m.calisto@uu.nl

Walter J. V. Vermeulen
W.J.V.Vermeulen@uu.nl

Roberta Salomone
salomoner@unime.it

<footnote n="1">¹ Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Department of Economics, University of Messina, Messina, Italy</footnote>