The Politics of Circular Economy

By Pedro Aibéo

The term circular economy has become a buzzword in sustainability discourse, praised as a catch-all solution to environmental degradation and overconsumption. But beneath the surface of optimism lies a more complex reality: What are the politics behind the circular economy? Who benefits from it, who defines it, and how is it being implemented?

A Concept with Power, and Pitfalls

The circular economy claims to unify diverse sectors, from waste management to industrial production, under one vision: reducing waste by reusing, recycling, and remanufacturing products to extend their life cycles.

It sounds ideal. But its very breadth is also a vulnerability.

“With over 114 definitions catalogued by Kirchherr et al., the circular economy is often whatever a policymaker or corporation needs it to be.”

This ambiguity opens the door to greenwashing and weak policy. States are not neutral actors here, they shape public narratives and determine which circular practices are supported, subsidized, or simply ignored.

Overconsumption, Symptom or Distraction?

Global Resource Extration Growth

Circular economy policies often target overconsumption, and for good reason. Between 1970 and 2010, global resource extraction grew from approximately 27 billion to 70 billion tonnes per year. Non-metallic mineral use increased nearly fivefold, and fossil fuel consumption rose by 45% (Ekins & Hughes, 2017).

But recycling and efficiency alone do not challenge the deeper model of extractivism. They offer symptomatic relief while leaving the structural inequalities of resource control untouched.

Circular Economy ≠ Post-Growth

Despite its rhetoric, the circular economy has largely failed to confront the ideology of constant growth. Strategies that reinforce current economic models, such as efficiency upgrades or product design tweaks, are favored, while ideas that challenge consumerism or ownership norms are sidelined.

There’s also a cultural layer. In many parts of India, for example, reuse and repair are embedded in everyday life through informal systems. In Finland, time and labor are valued differently, repair is often more expensive than replacement. This reflects global inequalities in how materials, waste, and human effort are valued.

Our time Vs Materials´s time

The Real Circular Economy Happens in Workshops

A truly transformative circular economy begins at the community level: in shared workshops, open-source repair spaces, and cooperatively managed resources.

“Countless buildings across Europe lie empty while housing crises grow. Why aren’t these included in circular economy policies?”

The abandonment of usable buildings contradicts circular ideals. A policy that supported adaptive reuse would be more circular than any recycling scheme.

But we must remain grounded. A perfect circular economy is a myth. It violates the second law of thermodynamics: no system can be 100% efficient.

Still, aiming for better is not naïve, it is necessary.

Toward a Critical Circular Economy

What we need is a politically conscious circular economy, one that doesn't just ask how materials circulate, but why, for whom, and at what cost.

This means:

• Questioning corporate and state dominance over circular economy narratives

• Addressing material inequality across global supply chains

• Supporting local, bottom-up initiatives—not just top-down efficiency fixes

Until then, the circular economy risks becoming little more than business as usual—with a green wrapper.

References

• Ekins, P., & Hughes, N. (2017). Resource Efficiency: Potential and Economic Implications. United Nations Environment Programme.

• Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221–232.

• Frosch, R.A., & Gallopoulos, N.E. (1989). Strategies for Manufacturing. Scientific American, 261(3), 144–152.

• Masi, D., Day, S., & Godsell, J. (2018). Supply chain configurations in the circular economy: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 10(7), 2540.

• Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton University Press.

• Hall, P.A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford University Press.

• Valenzuela, F., & Böhm, S. (2017). Against wasted politics: A critique of the circular economy. Ephemera, 17(1), 23–60.

• Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics, 143, 37–46.

Pedro Aibéo, 02.05.2025, Lappeenranta