Circular Horizons: Navigating the Path to Sustainable Prosperity

In the quest for sustainable development and environmental stewardship, the Circular Economy (CE) stands out as a beacon of hope and innovation. It marks a departure from the traditional linear “take-make-waste” model that has long dominated economic systems. At its heart, CE challenges this linear model, advocating for a holistic paradigm where resources are perpetually cycled through strategies like reuse, recycling, and regeneration [1]. This article embarks on a journey through the evolving landscape of CE, examining its theoretical foundations and practical applications.

For decades, the prevailing economic paradigm has emphasized production and consumption, often overlooking the finite nature of resources and the environmental consequences of unchecked growth [2]. However, with escalating concerns over resource depletion, environmental degradation, and climate change, there’s a burgeoning recognition of the need for a fundamental shift in our economic approach [3].

This article will dissect three pivotal facets of the CE paradigm: Circular Design, Industrial Symbiosis, and Grassroots Empowerment. We will delve into the principles and practices underpinning each of these pillars, drawing on theoretical frameworks, empirical evidence, and case studies from various industries and regions [4]. Additionally, we will scrutinize emerging trends that are shaping the future of CE, from advanced recycling technologies to digital platforms and evolving consumer behaviors [5]. By shedding light on practical approaches for businesses and communities, this article aims to chart a course towards a more sustainable and resilient future.

As we navigate the complexities of CE, it’s crucial to acknowledge the transition’s inherent challenges. Critics have voiced legitimate concerns regarding the feasibility and equity of circular practices, and the path forward will necessitate collaboration, innovation, and concerted efforts across all societal sectors [6].

In the following pages, we invite readers to join us on an explorative journey through CE, from theoretical concepts to practical applications, as we unpack the intricacies and prospects of this transformative paradigm [7].

Linear economy

The traditional economic model, known as the linear economy, has been guided by a “take-make-waste” philosophy. This approach has focused on creating products that are functional and costeffective but has often done so without considering the negative impacts on the environment and society. The linear economy operates under the false belief that resources are endless, which has resulted in excessive resource use, waste, environmental harm, and social disparities. Within this system, designers are pressured to prioritize immediate financial gains, which lead to overlooking the broader, long-term effects of their designs and neglecting the principles of the Circular Economy that focus on sustainability and resource efficiency.

However, there is a growing agreement among experts that this unsustainable approach must change. There is a call for a shift towards more sustainable socio-technical systems that consider not just economic growth but also social welfare, environmental health, and technological advancement [8]. Sustainability in this context means creating a balanced system that respects and integrates these various aspects. The Circular Economy (CE) is seen as a promising alternative to the linear model. It offers a way to bring these elements together in a positive and sustainable manner, ensuring that economic activities contribute to the well-being of both people and the planet [9].

Transitioning to a circular economy

The current economic system, often referred to as the linear economy, has traditionally focused on making and using products and then throwing them away - a process described as “takemake- waste.” This model has been efficient in terms of production and cost but has largely ignored the negative effects it has on the environment and society. It operates on the flawed belief that resources are infinite, leading to their overuse, the creation of waste, environmental harm, and social inequality. Designers in this system are usually driven by the immediate goal of profit, which means they often overlook the long-term consequences of their designs and miss out on opportunities to create products that are better for the environment and society.

As awareness of these issues grows, there is an increasing agreement that we need to move towards a more sustainable way of living and working - one that balances economic growth with social needs and environmental protection [8]. This is where the Circular Economy (CE) comes in. CE is a different way of thinking about how we make and use things. It’s about keeping products and materials in use for as long as possible and finding ways to create less waste and pollution [9].

In CE, the idea is not just to recycle things like plastic bottles to prevent them from ending up in the ocean. It’s about rethinking whether we need these products in the first place. It’s about changing the way clothes are made and used so that they are last longer and don’t end up being thrown away so quickly. It’s also about making electronics in a way that they can be easily repaired or upgraded, rather than thrown away and replaced [10,11].

To make this shift, we need to rethink how we define economic success and well-being in society. We need to value long-lasting, quality products over those that are made quickly and cheaply just to make more money. We need to consider new ways of sharing and working together to make the most of the resources we have, rather than competing for them [12].

In the Circular Economy (CE), the goal is to keep resources and by-products in use for as long as possible through repeated cycles of production and consumption, along with proper end-of-life management. This approach aims to shift away from the traditional linear production systems, which often result in waste, to a more sustainable closed-loop system where nothing is wasted [13,14]. While renewable energy is the ideal power source for these systems, it’s important to note that recycling alone isn’t enough. Recycling processes require energy, and materials can degrade in quality and quantity after multiple cycles. Therefore, a European Parliament briefing paper highlights the importance of adopting strategies that focus on reducing consumption to necessary levels and enforcing strict targets to reduce overall resource use [15].

A new economic model that prioritizes societal well-being emphasizes the importance of local supply chains, resilience in social and ecological systems, and reducing vulnerabilities in both society and the economy [10,11]. This means that businesses need to rethink their models to align with CE principles. Moreover, there needs to be a shift in societal values regarding wealth, growth, and community services, as well as how we produce and consume goods. These changes are essential to tackle the issues arising from population growth, environmental damage, climate change, and unexpected global events like wars, diseases, pandemics, and migrations (Figure 1).

Figure 1:Linear economy versus circular economy.

Embracing circular economy solutions (pathways to sustainability)

The circular economy (CE) offers a transformative approach to addressing the inefficiencies of the linear “take-make-waste” model. It is built on three core principles:
a) Designing for longevity: Creating products that last longer and can be easily maintained, repaired, or upgraded.
b) Maximizing resource efficiency: Using materials and resources in the most efficient way possible throughout the product lifecycle.
c) Promoting regeneration: Ensuring that, at the end of their life, products can be repurposed, recycled, or safely returned to the environment.

Circular Thinking, which evolves from Design Thinking, integrates these principles into the design process, considering the environmental and societal impacts of products from inception to end-of-life [16]. This shift towards CE is crucial for building a sustainable future, as highlighted by the Circularity Gap Report, which emphasizes the role of circularity in combating climate change (Table 1; [17-20]), by reducing consumption [21].

Table 1:Structured overview of the strategies that contribute to the circular economy.

These 21 circular solutions, aligned with principles of using fewer resources, prolonging resource life, recycling, and regenerating resources, present a comprehensive roadmap for steering our world towards a 1.5-degree pathway and fostering sustainable living [4].

Implementing circular design

Adopting circular design principles is essential for creating a sustainable future in various industries. This process requires teamwork from many different people, including those who manage operations, buildings, and supply chains, experts in different fields, service managers, researchers, and even customers. They all work together to make sure that circular practices are part of everyday business activities, supply chains, and the way consumers act [22]. A key part of this is making sure that materials are gathered responsibly. Using resources that can be renewed, recycled, or broken down naturally can greatly lessen the damage to the environment. For example, research by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation suggests that moving to a circular economy could reduce the world’s greenhouse gas emissions by 9.3 billion tonnes every year by 2050 [23].

It’s also very important to design and make products in a way that’s mindful of the environment. Studies have shown that being smarter about how much energy we use, how much waste we create, and how many emissions we produce can have big benefits for the planet. For instance, a European textile company found that by following circular design ideas, they used 20% less energy and 30% less water in just three years [24]. Additionally, teaching customers about the value of circular design and encouraging them to make eco-friendly choices is crucial. Research shows that when consumers understand and care about these issues, they’re more likely to support a circular economy. A survey by Accenture revealed that 78% of people prefer to buy from brands that care about the environment [25].

Having effective recycling systems is another important aspect of circular design. Studies have shown that strong recycling programs can greatly reduce waste and the use of new resources. For example, the ‘Loop’ program by Terra Cycle has worked with big companies like Procter & Gamble and Nestlé to make packaging that can be used again, which helps cut down on single-use plastics and supports circular practices [26]. If companies offer repair and maintenance services, they can make their products last longer, which means less waste. A study on a major electronics company showed that providing repair services led to 30% fewer returns and made customers 25% happier [26]. Thus, using circular design principles involves many steps, including how materials are collected, how products are designed and made, educating consumers, reducing waste, and recycling. By adopting these practices, companies can reduce their impact on the environment, use resources more wisely, and help build a more sustainable world [26].

Implementation of circular economy across industries

The circular economy is being put into practice across different industries to create a more sustainable world:
Textile industry: In the fashion world, there’s a big push to keep recycling clothes and materials so that we use less and waste less. This new way of doing things is different from the old way, where clothes were made, worn, and then thrown away. The goal now is to keep everything in use for as long as possible [16]. Fast fashion, which makes cheap clothes quickly, has been really bad for the planet and people, causing lots of waste and pollution [10].

There are new plans like “A New Textiles Economy” that want to get rid of harmful chemicals, make clothes that last longer and can be recycled, and use resources better [27]. Some big brands, like Patagonia and Eileen Fisher, are leading the way by making it easy for people to bring back their old clothes so they can be fixed up and sold again [28].

There are also new ideas like renting clothes and programs where you can return clothes when you’re done with them. These helps make fashion more sustainable by offering different ways to pay and making sure clothes get recycled [5]. Countries like China and places in Europe are working hard to make the fashion industry less wasteful.

Construction industry: The building industry creates a lot of waste, but it’s starting to change. In Europe, for example, there’s a lot of construction waste, so there’s a big need to do things differently [29]. The idea is to use materials more wisely and create less trash. This can mean taking apart old buildings carefully so the materials can be used again or building in a way that lets you change or add parts easily [29].

Some cool new ideas are being tried out, like using walnut shells for cleaning instead of throwing them away and having special managers who make sure everything is done in a way that’s good for the planet [29]. These changes are not just good for the Earth, but they also create new jobs and help the economy grow in a way that’s better for everyone [29].

Automotive industry: The automotive sector is gradually embracing circular practices to mitigate environmental impacts and enhance resource efficiency. Integrating circularity with lean manufacturing principles presents significant potentials for reducing waste and optimizing resource loops [30]. Remanufacturing of car parts, design innovations, and the exploration of alternative ownership models exemplify the industry’s circular transition [30].

Efforts to improve vehicle recycling rates and minimize landfill waste underscore the industry’s commitment to circularity, with advancements like disassembly robots and sustainable design initiatives driving progress (ETN-Demeter project).

Logistics industry: The logistics sector plays a pivotal role in facilitating circular economy transitions, particularly in countries like the Netherlands, where dependence on raw material imports necessitates sustainable practices. Circular logistics initiatives focus on optimizing shipment routes, reducing packaging waste, and facilitating material exchanges to promote resource efficiency [31]. Government-led programs and industry collaborations are pivotal in driving circularity in logistics, with initiatives aimed at enhancing sustainability and reducing environmental impacts [32].

Education industry: Circular economy principles are increasingly integrated into educational curricula worldwide, fostering awareness and knowledge among students and professionals. Initiatives like the “YES Circular Economy Challenge” in Scotland advocate holistic sustainability education, emphasizing practical applications and leadership support. Despite progress, there remains a need for comprehensive coverage of circular economy topics across educational institutions to effectively address sustainability challenges.

Plastic waste management: Efforts to address plastic pollution through circular economy policies and practices focus on recyclability, waste management, and product standardization (European Commission [33]). Innovations like hyperspectral imaging and machine learning enhance plastic sorting capabilities, facilitating recycling and resource recovery.

Rare-earth elements recovery: The recycling of rareearth elements (REEs) holds significant promise for reducing environmental pollution and conserving critical resources. Advances in recycling technologies, supported by policies, facilitate the recovery of REEs from electronic waste and industrial byproducts, contributing to environmental sustainability (Scientific Review, European Commission [33]). However, challenges remain in REE recycling and reuse. A major obstacle is the chemistry of REE separation. The process of isolating and refining individual rare earth elements poses difficulties due to their similar chemical properties. To address this challenge and reduce environmental pollution while diversifying REE sources, there is a clear need for the development of novel separation technologies that can lower the cost of large-scale REE separation and recycling (Balaram). In response to this need, the Critical Materials Institute (CMI) under the Department of Energy has developed a technique involving the use of Gluconobacter bacteria to metabolize sugars, producing acids that can dissolve and separate rare-earth elements from shredded electronic waste [34]. Studies suggest that by 2050, up to 40 to 75% of the EU’s clean energy metal needs could be met through local recycling [35]. Furthermore, research estimates losses of 61 metals, revealing that the lifespans of tech-critical metals are often short [36]. Using Project Drawdown’s modeling framework, another study indicates that metal recycling, even without considering costs or bottlenecks in the expansion of renewable energy generation, can lead to significant climate change mitigation [37].

Role of chemistry in circular design

Chemistry is key to creating a circular economy, particularly when it comes to dealing with plastics. Experts predict that if we don’t change our ways, we could end up with over 12 billion tons of plastic waste by 2050. To prevent this, we need to come up with new ways to design plastics and use them responsibly in every industry. One big problem is that it’s hard to separate different kinds of plastics for recycling, which can waste a lot of energy and materials. We need to make chemicals simpler and just enough to meet our needs, which will help make recycling easier and more effective. It’s important for everyone involved to work together to make the plastic economy circular and sustainable. Bucknall [38] suggests that we need to think about the whole life of plastics, from how they’re made to how they’re thrown away.

Scientists are also finding ways to turn waste chemicals from industries into useful things, which can save money and be better for the environment. They’re looking into creating new types of materials that are good for the planet, like safer pesticides. Moving to products made from plants instead of oil could help cut down on pollution, but it’s a complex issue that needs careful thought. Salazar Sandoval et al. [39] say that it’s really important to understand the environmental effects of these plant-based products and consider things like what the product is and how ready the technology is.

When it comes to designing for a circular economy, designers have to decide whether to stick with what they know or try a more complete way of doing things. Bros & Co use something called the Circular Blueprint Canvas, which helps them think about everything from creating a product to recycling it. This helps them really get how circular economy works. Modak [40] says that being circular means thinking about how to reduce, reuse, recycle, recover, and redesign everything we use, like energy, water, waste, and materials.

Industries in symbiosis

The transition to Circular Thinking propels a compelling business case, safeguarding finite resources, markedly reducing waste generation, fostering economic resilience by generating new job opportunities, aligning design with environmental stewardship, and engaging environmentally conscious consumers to enhance brand reputation. Circular Design Thinking, as this essay posits, offers a transformative approach to design. It challenges designers to reassess their processes, tools, and perspectives, fostering not only environmental benefits but also long-term sustainability and societal value creation. By fully embracing Circular Thinking, businesses can position themselves at the vanguard of innovation and responsible growth [41].

In the intricate dance of the Circular Economy, collaboration takes center stage. This exploration unveils the symbiotic relationships among disparate industries, weaving a narrative of shared resources, waste reduction, and heightened efficiency. Beyond mere sustainability, it delves into the redefinition of economic rules, fostering a more interconnected and resilient global economy. The roots of this symbiosis trace back to the emergence of industrial ecology in the 1980s, particularly the concept of “industrial metabolism” and the subsequent evolution towards eco-efficiency during the 1992 Earth Summit. This paved the way for the transformative journey of industrial symbiosis (IS), turning unsustainable production into a beacon of sustainability [42].

In the late 1980s, Frosch and Gallopoulos laid the groundwork for Industrial Ecology (IE), envisioning optimal energy and material consumption and considering effluents as raw materials for subsequent processes [43]. Ayres expanded this vision, depicting places practicing industrial ecology as systems for material transformation and industrial metabolism [44]. The sustainability movement further propelled the concept of “islands of sustainability” during this era. As the new millennium unfolded, the term ‘eco-efficiency’ became associated with internal production cost reduction. Industrial symbiosis emerged from sustainability discussions, utilizing natural ecology as a metaphor for material exchanges [45]. The eco-industrial park at Kalundborg, Denmark, presented a pioneering model of industrial symbiosis involving ten companies and 14 materials exchanges [46]. In recent years, research on Industrial Symbiosis has flourished, with a surge post-2007. Notably, Neves et al.’s comprehensive review revealed a dominance of theoretical content, featuring manufacturing and water/wastewater management as prominent case study categories [47].

IS is portrayed as a complex industrial cluster, involving the exchange of products, by-products, and utilities, creating value across social, economic, and environmental dimensions (Boom- Cárcamo & Peñabaena-Niebles). Various scholars contribute diverse perspectives on IS. Chertow’s [48] definition emphasizes collaboration through geographical proximity, introducing the 32 heuristic mode. Jensen [49] and Velenturf [50] highlight the significance of geospatial industry diversity, linking materials reuse to enhance cost competitiveness. Velenturf, Jensen, Hoekman, and Purnell [49,50] argue that resource recovery from waste can restore the balance between resource scarcity and waste overload.

Lombardi [51] expands IS definitions, emphasizing diverse organizations fostering eco-innovation and culture change. Lombardi’s emphasis on diverse organizations engaging in commercial transactions signifies a shift beyond traditional IS material exchanges. Floridi [52] suggests that “additional benefits” of sustainability include improving the quality of life, fostering social justice, enhancing human dignity, and promoting global citizenship. He also emphasizes the importance of developing the skill sets and competencies that are needed to cope with the challenges and opportunities of the digital age, such as digital literacy, critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration.

The evolution of industrial symbiosis from its early roots in industrial ecology to contemporary perspectives demonstrates a widening understanding of its value and impact [53]. The traditional focus on material exchanges has expanded to encompass diverse dimensions, including economic, social, and environmental considerations [54]. As IS continues to evolve, embracing a holistic approach becomes imperative for fostering sustainable collaborations and realizing the full spectrum of benefits [55]. Industrial symbiosis, a pivotal aspect of the circular economy, showcases positive employment impacts, especially within entire value chains. However, challenges persist in ensuring the quality of jobs created [56].

Developing economies, particularly in Latin America, witness a rise in industrial symbiosis initiatives, but their impact on employment, both quantitatively and qualitatively, remains a focal point [54]. The informal economy prevalent in developing countries poses challenges to achieving decent work standards within industrial symbiosis networks [56]. While larger Colombian enterprises show less informal employment, smaller enterprises in Argentinean value chains grapple with informality issues. The formalization of microbusinesses within supply chains of anchor enterprises participating in industrial symbiosis networks, as demonstrated in Colombia, presents an avenue for fostering decent work [55]. Gender disparities persist in employment within industrial symbiosis networks, particularly evident in Argentinean cases [53]. Women’s low participation reflects broader gender trends in the involved sectors, necessitating targeted interventions (Ayres & Simonis). Efforts should focus on promoting gender equality and inclusivity within these networks (Allenby & Richards). Industrial symbiosis aligns with sustainable development principles outlined in the 2030 Agenda, showcasing positive economic, environmental, and employment effects (Ashton & Bain). However, concerted efforts are required to enhance job quality and address identified deficits in decent work, particularly in gender equality and formalization (Ayres). The International Labour Conference’s call for a human-centered recovery from the COVID-19 crisis underscores the need for inclusive, sustainable strategies (Ashton). Prioritizing sustainable enterprises that generate decent work, foster resilient supply chains, and promote the transition to formal employment is crucial [57].

Anchor enterprises, typically large firms initiating these networks, hold the potential to lead the formalization process and should uphold high corporate social responsibility standards [55]. To address identified gaps in decent work, additional research and data collection focusing on job quality within industrial symbiosis are recommended [56]. Country-specific studies can shed light on successful measures and remedies that may be replicated elsewhere (Mirata & Emtairah). Comprehensive considerations should encompass occupational safety, health, social dialogue, unionization, working time, and wages to ensure holistic improvements in employment standards (Ayres & Simonis). Encouraging research on the potential of SDGs to generate decent work within the circular economy is integral to a sustainable recovery process (Ashton & Bain).

Grassroots empowerment

Grassroots Empowerment in the Circular Economy goes beyond corporate boardrooms, allowing local communities to play an active role in managing their environmental impact. This grassroots revolution involves community-led initiatives, such as recycling projects and repair hubs, showcasing that circular practices are not just dictated from the top but are a collective movement [58]. Grassroots empowerment is a process that enables individuals and communities to engage in decision-making, express their needs, and take actions to enhance their lives and environments [59]. The Circular Economy, focused on reducing finite resource consumption and maximizing the value of products throughout their lifecycle, aligns seamlessly with grassroots empowerment [13]. The concept of grassroots empowerment in the circular economy emphasizes that local communities can drive environmental change by minimizing waste, conserving resources, creating jobs, and enhancing well-being [28].

Examples of grassroots empowerment in the circular economy demonstrate how local communities can actively contribute to positive environmental and social change:
Community recycling initiatives: These projects involve gathering, sorting, and processing waste materials from households, businesses, or public areas, transforming them into new products or raw materials. For instance, initiatives like Plastic credits incentivize communities to collect and recycle plastic waste, thereby supporting local infrastructure and education [16].
Local repair hubs: These are physical locations where individuals can access tools, skills, and guidance to repair or repurpose electronics or other items, reducing the need for disposal or new purchases. The Restart Project, for example, is a network of community groups organizing repair events, advocating for the right to repair, and evaluating the environmental and social impact of repair activities [5].
Grassroots eco-social innovations: These solutions address both environmental and social challenges and are developed and implemented by local actors, including informal workers, social movements, or civil society organizations. For instance, waste pickers in Brazil and India have developed innovative approaches to collecting, sorting, and selling recyclable materials while advocating for their rights and recognition [58].

These examples highlight how grassroots empowerment in the circular economy can have a positive impact on local communities and the planet as a whole. By embracing circular practices, communities can generate local employment opportunities, support small businesses, and ensure that the benefits of sustainable development are accessible to everyone [7]. Global Citizen Capital, deeply engaged with the UpLink community, advocates for 10 principles to accelerate grassroots innovation and foster inclusivity (Global Citizen Capital [60]):
1. Emphasize the importance of sustainable solutions by globally sourcing innovative ideas to address challenges posed by climate change and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Encourage active participation from local governments worldwide in regulating environmental concerns, empowering communities, and dismantling barriers to achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
3. Promote self-reliance in addressing local issues through grassroots innovation, facilitated by the UpLink community’s exchange of research, expertise, and talent.
4. Offer technological mentorship to advance circular economy initiatives, fostering collaboration between innovators and entrepreneurs.
5. Contribute to the dialogue on systemic racism, injustice, and oppression, recognizing and addressing inequalities to drive grassroots innovation.
6. Evaluate the interdisciplinary impact on marginalized youth, acknowledging challenges in academic achievement and health outcomes, and providing equal opportunities early in their lives.
7. Tailor solutions to the local context to support disadvantaged communities, raising awareness about how innovations can address local needs and enhance productivity and income.
8. Cultivate a digital culture that prioritizes accessibility, diversity, and inclusion, empowering societies and organizations to innovate inclusively.
9. Forge connections between grassroots innovators, academia, and youth civil society, leveraging fresh perspectives for ingenious solutions.
10. Establish Global Citizen Capital as a global thought leader in inter-generational innovation, drawing on the experience of mature talent and the creativity of youth to drive sustainable innovation at the grassroots level.

This collaborative approach contributes to a paradigm shift necessary for societal progress, ensuring that the benefits of circular practices are accessible to all, irrespective of background or geographic location [58].

Exploring circular economy case studies: transformative initiatives

This section unveils a spectrum of endeavors undertaken by various companies across diverse regions; all united by their commitment to embracing Circular Economy (CE) principles. CE, grounded in a triad of principles and driven by innovative design, focuses on eliminating waste and pollution, maintaining products and materials in continual use, and fostering the regeneration of nature (Ellen MacArthur Foundation [4]). Here, we delve into the key highlights of each case study:
Neptuno pumps (Chile): Neptuno Pumps stands out as a pioneer in leveraging industry 4.0 technology to craft energyefficient pumps from recycled materials. Beyond its innovative manufacturing practices, the company champions a circular economy model that emphasizes the reuse, recycling, and remanufacturing of old equipment and scrap, thereby closing the loop on resource utilization [61].
Pulpo SA (Argentina): Operating at the intersection of sustainability and production, Pulpo SA specializes in manufacturing paper and cardboard products sourced from recycled materials. Moreover, the company extends its impact through a comprehensive waste collection and transformation service, converting discarded paper from various industries and households into new, ecofriendly products [62].
Technological laboratory in uruguay (LATU): LATU, a nonstate public organization, epitomizes innovation by developing natural textiles from waste pineapple leaves, aptly named Piñatex and Piñayarn. These sustainable alternatives to leather and wool not only reduce environmental impact but also foster social responsibility by providing livelihood opportunities in rural areas [63].
Closing the loop (Netherlands): With a mission to address the global e-waste challenge, Closing the Loop offers a unique closedloop service for mobile phones. By collecting and recycling scrap phones from developing countries, the company not only mitigates waste but also offsets the environmental footprint of new phone purchases, paving the way for a more sustainable electronics industry [64].
Better future factory (Netherlands): Renowned for its commitment to eco-friendly design, Better Future Factory utilizes recycled plastic as a primary material in its innovative creations. Through a multifaceted approach encompassing waste reduction, resource efficiency, and circular innovation, the agency spearheads the transition towards a more sustainable future [65].
Donar (slovenia): Donar distinguishes itself as a frontrunner in sustainable furniture design, crafting ergonomic chairs, sofas, and other products using recycled and renewable materials. Embracing a cradle-to-cradle approach, the company minimizes environmental impact while delivering products of exceptional quality and longevity [66].
Ananas anam (United Kingdom): Ananas Anam revolutionizes the textile industry by repurposing pineapple leaves into Piñatex and Piñayarn, eco-friendly alternatives to traditional textiles. Beyond its environmental contributions, the company creates social value by generating employment opportunities in rural areas and fostering economic resilience among pineapple farmers [67].

Through these exemplary case studies, it becomes evident that the adoption of Circular Economy principles not only drives environmental sustainability but also fosters innovation, social responsibility, and economic resilience on a global scale [7].
Diversity in industrial sectors: In addition to recycling, CE concepts are applied innovatively across various industrial sectors, including production, manufacturing, and sales. Notably, businesses such as Better Future Factory and Donar focus on creating designer goods and stylish furniture from recycled waste, emphasizing that CE can be integral to a business’s core strategy [5].
a) Leadership and Vision: The study underscores the pivotal role of visionary leadership in successful CE implementation. Examples include Joost de Kluijver of Closing the Loop, who initiated the company to recycle mobile phones in Africa, and Petar Ostojic, CEO of Neptuno, whose advocacy for CE earned the company recognition [16]. LATU’s management in Uruguay and Pulpo in Argentina also played crucial roles in supporting and promoting CE within their organizations [24]. Financial Investment: Initial financial backing is crucial for CE initiatives. Cases such as LATU and Donar secured public funds from organizations like the UN Development Programme and the Slovenian Ministry of Economic Development and Technology [63,66]. Others, like Closing the Loop and Better Future Factory, relied on private investment or personal funds from founders [64,65].
b) Environmental Impact: Companies demonstrated significant environmental impact, with Neptuno’s clients experiencing up to 70% energy consumption savings and 75% reduction in solid waste [61]. Ananas Anam’s innovative use of pineapple waste and Better Future Factory’s recycling of 221 tonnes of plastic highlight the diverse approaches to reducing environmental footprint [65,68].
c) Economic Impact: While Closing the Loop showcased impressive revenue growth and employment expansion, Neptuno reported sales growth and hiring increases [61,64]. Latin American firms like Neptuno and Pulpo demonstrated the economic viability of CE, indicating that profitability and growth are not exclusive to larger, more established companies [61,62].
d) Social Impact: Beyond employment, these companies contribute to social welfare. Better Future Factory emphasizes education, Donar promotes a six-hour workday and gender equality, while LATU prioritizes social inclusion and community engagement [63,65,66]. Ananas Anam implements fair trade practices across its value chain, ensuring fair wages for workers [68].
e) Communication: All companies maintain informative websites and engage in outreach activities, aligning with CE principles. However, a balance is essential to prevent excessive communication from hindering business development, as emphasized by one of the CEOs [16]. The highlighted cases, spanning continents, industries, and sizes, exemplify the versatility and relevance of CE concepts. Collaboration with non-business actors and individual passion for sustainability emerged as common success factors [7]. Notably, only a few cases received substantial public funds, indicating the potential for CE entrepreneurship without heavy reliance on public financing [28]. The showcased cases are positioned to inspire future CE entrepreneurs, researchers, and policymakers [4].

Navigating challenges and solutions

Despite the prevailing optimism surrounding the Circular Economy (CE), scholarly critiques highlight underlying concerns. Giampietro and Funtowicz, alongside Murray et al. [7], question the biophysical feasibility of CE, while Korhonen et al. [69] and Moreau et al. [70] emphasize its apolitical framing and ambiguity on critical issues like economic growth. Despite the mainstream assumption of CE practices being inherently sustainable [13,14], impacts on social equity and intergenerational well-being are often neglected [70]. Although CE is praised for its potential social benefits, such as job creation and extended product lifetimes [4,6,16], challenges persist. Policymakers, businesses, and academics grapple with implementing circular strategies lacking clear guidance or cohesive metrics to evaluate proposed initiatives (Corvellec, Ranta [71]). Currently, efforts primarily focus on material recovery strategies, with a notable emphasis on recycling [72].

To navigate these challenges effectively, several key actions are essential:
1. Assess the employment impact: Evaluate how CE initiatives affect employment and ensure a fair transition for workers and communities by providing training, education, and social protection.
2. Balance waste reduction and recycling: Consider both the environmental benefits of waste reduction and the resource costs of recycling. Utilize renewable energy sources, enhance recycling efficiency, and prioritize waste prevention and reuse.
3. Address overconsumption: Combat overconsumption and overproduction through awareness-raising, consumer behavior change, and policies discouraging excessive consumption and production.
4. Redesign value chains: Incorporate circular principles into product and service design, production, distribution, and consumption. Collaborate with stakeholders, innovate solutions, and adopt new business models.
5. Align circularity with business interests: Ensure circular practices are aligned with profitability, competitiveness, and customer satisfaction through cost-benefit analysis, financial access, and stimulating market demand for circular products and services.
6. Promote circular behavior: Encourage resource conservation, waste reduction, and environmental protection by educating, engaging, and empowering individuals to adopt circular lifestyles and practices.
7. Design effective policies: Develop policies that facilitate the transition to a circular economy, including standards, targets, taxes, subsidies, and bans. Coordinate across governance levels and sectors, harmonize policies, and monitor and evaluate outcomes for effectiveness.

Trends shaping the future of the circular economy

The circular economy is at the forefront of combining sustainability with innovation, and it’s set to undergo significant changes. As the world faces increasing environmental challenges, adopting a circular approach is becoming more crucial. Here are the main trends that will influence the direction of the circular economy:
1. Advanced recycling technologies: Expect exciting new developments in recycling technology, especially for handling complex materials like plastics and electronic waste. These innovations will meet the rising need for efficient recycling solutions [16].
2. Digital platforms enhancing circularity: Digital tools, including blockchain and the Internet of Things (IoT), will be crucial in improving the circular economy. They’ll help track materials more accurately and make supply chains more transparent [5].
3. Growth of Product-as-a-Service (PaaS) models: Moving away from owning products, PaaS models will become more popular. People will lease products instead, which lets companies manage maintenance and recycling, leading to better use of resources and longer product life [28].
4. Circular design in the spotlight: There will be a big shift in design thinking to focus on the entire lifecycle of products. The aim will be to create items that can be easily fixed, upgraded, or recycled [10].
5. Collaboration for circular success: Working together across different sectors will be essential for the circular economy. Partnerships among businesses, non-profits, and governments will help share knowledge and resources more effectively [7].
6. Supportive government policies: Governments are starting to see the benefits of the circular economy and are likely to introduce strong policies and regulations to encourage circular practices and reduce waste [6].
7. Changing consumer attitudes: Consumers are becoming more aware and will prefer brands that are committed to circular principles. This change will push companies to adopt more sustainable practices [13].
8. Turning waste into wealth: The way we view waste is changing. Instead of seeing it as a problem, it will be seen as a valuable resource. New methods, like using bio-based materials and chemical recycling, will turn waste into something useful [58].

Thus, the circular economy’s future is defined by new technologies, supportive regulations, changing consumer behaviors, and a strong focus on collaboration and eco-friendly design. As we move towards this future, both businesses and consumers have a role to play in this important shift towards a more sustainable world [4].

Bridging the gaps: Advancing towards a fully circular economy

Identifying gap areas within the context of the Circular Economy (CE) involves recognizing where current practices fall short and where opportunities for improvement lie. Here are some potential gap areas:
a) Technological innovation: There’s a need for more advanced technologies that can efficiently recycle and up-cycle a wider range of materials, especially complex composites and electronic waste.
b) Economic incentives: Current economic structures often favor linear consumption over circular practices. Developing incentives that make circular options more financially attractive could help bridge this gap.
c) Policy and regulation: While some progress has been made, there is still a lack of comprehensive policies that enforce and encourage circular practices across all sectors and regions.
d) Consumer awareness and participation: Many consumers are not fully aware of the circular economy or how they can contribute to it. Increasing education and engagement is crucial.
e) Supply chain transparency: Full transparency in supply chains is often lacking, making it difficult to track the lifecycle of products and materials.
f) Collaboration and standardization: There is a need for greater collaboration between industries, governments, and NGOs to create standardized practices that facilitate circularity.
g) Infrastructure for circular systems: Many regions lack the necessary infrastructure, such as recycling facilities and systems for product return and reuse.
h) Research and Development: More research is needed to understand the full environmental and social impacts of circular strategies and to develop new materials and processes.
i) Global Coordination: CE requires global coordination to manage resources and waste streams effectively, which is currently fragmented.

Addressing these gaps requires concerted efforts from all stakeholders, including businesses, consumers, researchers, and policymakers. By working together, we can move towards a more sustainable and efficient circular economy [73-78].

In conclusion, the Circular Economy (CE) represents a transformative shift from traditional, linear models of consumption and production to a sustainable, regenerative system that balances economic growth with environmental stewardship and social equity. This review has highlighted the multifaceted aspects of CE, including circular design, industrial symbiosis, grassroots empowerment, and the significant role of emerging trends and case studies. As we collectively embrace circular principles, we pave the way for a future where sustainability is not just an aspiration but a practical reality, guiding our decisions and actions towards a resilient and prosperous world for all. The journey towards circularity is not just a path we can choose; it is the path we must take to ensure a sustainable legacy for future generations.

1. Selvan RT, Ramadoss T, Ramakrishna S (2022) Sustainability for beginners: Introduction and business prospects. World Scientific.
2. Martínez-Alier J, Pascual U, Vivien FD, Zaccai E (2010) Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecological Economics 69(9): 1741-1747.
3. Heintz J, Staab S, Turquet L (2021) Don’t let another crisis go to waste: The COVID-19 pandemic and the imperative for a paradigm shift. Feminist Economics 27(1-2): 470-485.
4. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015) Towards a circular economy: Business rationale for an accelerated transition.
5. Lüdeke-Freund F, Gold S, Bocken NM (2018) A review and typology of circular economy business model patterns. Journal of Industrial Ecology 23(1): 36-61.
6. Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken NM, Hultink EJ (2017) The circular economy-a new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production 143: 757-768.
7. Murray A, Skene K, Haynes K (2017) The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics 140(3): 369-380.
8. Seiffert MK, Loch C (2005) Systemic thinking in environmental management: support for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production 13(12): 1197-1202.
9. Ren J, Manzardo A, Mazzi A, Zuliani F, Scipioni A (2013) Prioritization of bioethanol production pathways in China based on life cycle sustainability assessment and multicriteria decision-making. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18(5): 1103-1119.
10. Bocken NM, de Pauw I, Bakker C, van der Grinten B (2016) Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering 33(5): 308-320.
11. Lieder M, Rashid A (2016) Towards circular economy implementation: A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 115: 36-51.
12. Ostrom E (2010) Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review 100(3): 641-672.
13. Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S (2016) A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 114: 11-32.
14. Stahel W (2016) The circular economy. Nature 531(7595): 435-438.
15. European Parliament (2020) Circular economy action plan: Achieving the ambitious EU waste policy targets.
16. Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 127: 221-232.
17. Benton T, Bailey R (2019) The paradox of productivity: Agricultural productivity promotes food system inefficiency. Global Sustainability 2: e6.
18. Clark MA, Domingo NG, Colgan K, Thakrar SK, Tilman D, et al. (2020) Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2° C climate change targets. Science 370(6517): 705-708.
19. FAO (2018) Sustainable food systems: Concept and framework.
20. Gonçalves MLMBB, Maximo GJ (2023) Circular economy in the food chain: Production, processing and waste management. Circular Economy and Sustainability 3: 1405-1423.
21. Wang K, Chen W, Zhang R, Zink T (2022) Circular economy as a climate strategy: Current knowledge and calls-to-action. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 171: 105735.
22. Rodríguez-Espíndola O, Albores P, Brewster C, Teixeira A (2022) The role of circular economy principles and sustainable-oriented innovation to enhance social, economic and environmental performance: Evidence from Mexican SMEs. International Journal of Production Economics 248: 108495.
23. Kumar S, Darshna A, Ranjan D (2023) A review of literature on the integration of green energy and circular economy. Heliyon 9(11): e21091.
24. Velenturf AP, Purnell P (2021) Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption 27: 1437-1457.
25. Purcărea T, Purcărea VL, Gheorghe IR, Petrescu CM (2022) Major shifts in sustainable consumer behavior in Romania and retailers’ priorities in agilely adapting to it. Sustainability 14(3): 1627.
26. Gray M (2022) Packaging design in the circular economy: Reuse models in fast-moving consumer goods. Dissertation.
27. Nikolaou IE, Jones N, Stefanakis A (2021) Circular economy and sustainability: The past, the present and the future directions. Circ Econ Sust 1: 1-20.
28. Urbinati A, Chiaroni D, Chiesa V (2017) Towards a new taxonomy of circular economy business models. Journal of Cleaner Production 168: 487-498.
29. Gorecki J (2020) Circular economy in construction: Current awareness, challenges and enablers. Environment Systems and Decisions 40(4): 392-400.
30. Wang Y, Li J, Zhang X, Li G (2022) Circular economy strategies for electric vehicles: A review and future research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production 279: 123527.
31. Rli (2015) Circular economy: From wish to practice. Journal of Cleaner Production 108: 761-768.
32. Sparrevik M, de Boer L, Michelsen O, van der Voet E (2021) Circular economy in the construction sector: Advancing environmental performance through systemic and holistic thinking. Environment Systems and Decisions 41(4): 392-400.
33. European Commission (2019) Nature-based solutions.
34. Jowitt SM, Werner TT, Weng Z, Mudd GM (2018) Recycling of the rare earth elements. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 13: 1-7.
35. Hagelüken C, Goldmann D (2022) Recycling and circular economy-Towards a closed loop for metals in emerging clean technologies. Mineral Economics 35(3-4): 539-562.
36. Charpentier Poncelet A, Helbig C, Loubet P, Beylot A, Muller S, et al. (2022) Losses and lifetimes of metals in the economy. Nature Sustainability 5(8): 717-726.
37. Gorman MR, Dzombak DA, Frischmann C (2022) Potential global GHG emissions reduction from increased adoption of metals recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 184: 106424.
38. Bucknall DG (2020) Plastics as a materials system in a circular economy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 378(2176): 20190268.
39. Salazar Sandoval S, Amenábar A, Toledo I, Silva N, Contreras P (2024) Advances in the sustainable development of biobased materials using plant and animal waste as raw materials: A review. Sustainability 16(3): 1073.
40. Modak P (2021) Practicing circular economy. CRC Press.
41. OECD (2021) Towards a more resource-efficient and circular economy.
42. Mallawaarachchi H, Li J, Herath I, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2020) Unveiling the conceptual development of industrial symbiosis: Bibliometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 258: 120618.
43. Rweyendela AG (2022) Getting closer to SDG12: incorporating industrial ecology principles into project EIA. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 65(6): 953-974.
44. Kennedy CA (2016) Industrial ecology and cities. In Clift R, Druckman A (Eds.), Taking stock of industrial ecology, pp. 69-86.
45. Diemer A, Morales M, Nedelciu C, Schellens M, Oostdijk M (2020) Paradigms, models, scenarios and practices for strong sustainability. Éditions Oeconomia.
46. Behne BA (2016) Industrial ecology analysis of the potential for an Eastern Nebraska Industrial Symbiosis Network (ENISN): A comparative study (Doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA.
47. Oughton C, Kurup B, Anda M, Ho G (2022) Industrial symbiosis to circular economy: What does the literature reveal for a successful complex industrial area? Circular Economy and Sustainability 2(4): 1317-1344.
48. Chertow MR (2007) “Uncovering” industrial symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(1): 11-30.
49. Jensen PD (2016) The role of geospatial industrial diversity in the facilitation of regional industrial symbiosis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 107: 92-103.
50. Velenturf AP, Jensen PD (2016) Promoting industrial symbiosis: Using the concept of proximity to explore social network development. Journal of Industrial Ecology 20(4): 700-709.
51. Lombardi DR (2017) Industrial symbiosis: Origins, evolution, and future directions. In Azeiteiro U, Leal Filho W, Brandli C (Eds.), Handbook of research on waste management techniques for sustainability, pp: 1-23.
52. Floridi L (2020) Translating principles into practices of digital ethics: five risks of being unethical. Philosophy & Technology 33(2): 185-200.
53. Zhang Y, Zheng H, Chen B, Su M, Liu G (2015) A review of industrial symbiosis research: theory and methodology. Frontiers of Earth Science 9(1): 91-104.
54. Azevedo J, Henriques J, Estrela M, Dias R, Vladimirova D, et al. (2021) Guidelines for industrial symbiosis-a systematic approach for content definition and practical recommendations for implementation. Circular Economy and Sustainability 1: 507-523.
55. Boons F, Spekkink W, Mouzakitis Y (2011) The dynamics of industrial symbiosis: a proposal for a conceptual framework based upon a comprehensive literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production 19(9-10): 905-911.
56. Doménech T, Davies M (2011) The social aspects of industrial symbiosis: the application of social network analysis to industrial symbiosis networks. Progress in Industrial Ecology 7(4): 362-381.
57. Baird D, Fath BD, Ulanowicz RE, Asmus H, Asmus R (2009) On the consequences of aggregation and balancing of networks on system properties derived from ecological network analysis. Ecological Modelling 220(22): 3093-3104.
58. Anantharaman M (2021) Reclaiming the circular economy: Informal work and grassroots power. In Sowers J, Van Deveer SD, Weinthal E (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative environmental politics. Oxford University Press, UK.
59. Henry M, Hoogenstrijd T, Kirchherr J (2022) Motivations and identities of “grassroots” circular entrepreneurs: An initial exploration. Business Strategy and the Environment 32(3): 1122-1141.
60. Global Citizen Capital (2020) Impact and sustainability.
61. Neptuno Pumps (2019) Neptuno Pumps: Circular economy solutions for the mining industry.
62. Pulpo SA (2020) Pulpo: The first circular economy company in Argentina.
63. LATU (2018) LATU: 50 years of innovation.
64. Closing the Loop (2020) Closing the loop is the future of business.
65. Better Future Factory (2020) About us.
66. Donar (2020) About us.
67. Ananas Anam (2020) Ananas Anam’s 2021 impact report.
68. Ananas Anam (2020) Our story.
69. Korhonen J, Honkasalo A, Seppälä J (2018) Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics 143: 37-46.
70. Moreau V, Sahakian M, van Griethuysen P, Vuille F (2017) Coming full circle: Why social and institutional dimensions matter for the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology 21(3): 497-506.
71. Ranta V, Aarikka-Stenroos L, Ritala P, Mäkinen S (2018) Exploring institutional drivers and barriers of the circular economy: A cross-regional comparison of China, the US, and Europe. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 135: 70-82.
72. Zink T, Geyer R (2017) Circular economy rebound. Journal of Industrial Ecology 21(3): 593-602.
73. Nikolenko SI, Dehmamy N (2021) Circular economy in the European Union: A policy review. Journal of Industrial Ecology 25(6): 1225-1235.
74. Pearce DW, Turner RK (1990) Economics of natural resources and the environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
75. Ritzén S, Sandström GÖ (2017) Barriers to the circular economy - integration of perspectives and domains. Procedia CIRP 64: 7-12.
76. Tukker A (2015) Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy - A review. Journal of Cleaner Production 97: 76-91.
77. Winterton N (2021) Chemistry for sustainable technologies (2^nd edn), Royal Society of Chemistry.
78. WRAP (2020) Textiles 2030: UK's new action plan to drive circular economy for textiles.