A defense of the circular economy

IF 5.7 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Julian Kirchherr, Mitchell P. Jones, Martin Geissdoerfer, Matthew Coffay
{"title":"A defense of the circular economy","authors":"Julian Kirchherr,&nbsp;Mitchell P. Jones,&nbsp;Martin Geissdoerfer,&nbsp;Matthew Coffay","doi":"10.1111/jiec.70128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The notion of circular economy (CE) has been trending among policymakers, businesses, and academia for over a decade. Sometimes poorly understood and often misrepresented as a one-size-fits-all solution to environmental problems without economic trade-offs, the concept has recently drawn considerable criticism. According to its critics, the CE (1) rebrands existing concepts without clarity, (2) makes unrealistic environmental promises, (3) oversimplifies and overlooks critical factors, (4) clashes with societal values and norms, (5) fails in practical business applications, and (6) serves as a capitalist tool for Western interests. In this paper, we critically review these criticisms of the CE, many of which are not based on empirical realities, are obsolete, or originate in oversimplified interpretations of the circle metaphor. We argue that CE is an “umbrella” framing for existing concepts with a relatively concrete definition. Formerly corporate led, CE has matured into an academically dominated field, backed by substantial technical literature, new sub-fields led by social scientists, and an increasingly advanced and detailed understanding of previous simplifications. Empirical evidence is emerging that CE can be operationalized and scaled, provide considerable environmental benefits, and can align with societal values and priorities. While easy to criticize, the hope and momentum that the CE has sparked is creating tangible benefits over other sustainability-oriented concepts. Further research is required to establish its long-term advantages, drawbacks, and complementarities with alternative approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":16050,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Industrial Ecology","volume":"29 6","pages":"1959-1976"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jiec.70128","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Industrial Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.70128","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The notion of circular economy (CE) has been trending among policymakers, businesses, and academia for over a decade. Sometimes poorly understood and often misrepresented as a one-size-fits-all solution to environmental problems without economic trade-offs, the concept has recently drawn considerable criticism. According to its critics, the CE (1) rebrands existing concepts without clarity, (2) makes unrealistic environmental promises, (3) oversimplifies and overlooks critical factors, (4) clashes with societal values and norms, (5) fails in practical business applications, and (6) serves as a capitalist tool for Western interests. In this paper, we critically review these criticisms of the CE, many of which are not based on empirical realities, are obsolete, or originate in oversimplified interpretations of the circle metaphor. We argue that CE is an “umbrella” framing for existing concepts with a relatively concrete definition. Formerly corporate led, CE has matured into an academically dominated field, backed by substantial technical literature, new sub-fields led by social scientists, and an increasingly advanced and detailed understanding of previous simplifications. Empirical evidence is emerging that CE can be operationalized and scaled, provide considerable environmental benefits, and can align with societal values and priorities. While easy to criticize, the hope and momentum that the CE has sparked is creating tangible benefits over other sustainability-oriented concepts. Further research is required to establish its long-term advantages, drawbacks, and complementarities with alternative approaches.

Abstract Image

捍卫循环经济
十多年来,循环经济(CE)的概念一直是决策者、企业和学术界的热门话题。这一概念有时很难被理解,而且常常被误读为一种不需要经济权衡就能解决环境问题的一刀切的解决方案,最近受到了相当多的批评。根据其批评者的说法,行政长官(1)在不明确的情况下重塑现有概念,(2)做出不切实际的环境承诺,(3)过度简化和忽视关键因素,(4)与社会价值观和规范冲突,(5)在实际商业应用中失败,(6)成为西方利益的资本主义工具。在本文中,我们批判性地回顾了这些批评,其中许多批评不是基于经验现实,是过时的,或者源于对圆圈隐喻的过于简化的解释。我们认为,行政长官是现有概念的“保护伞”框架,具有相对具体的定义。在大量的技术文献、由社会科学家领导的新子领域,以及对先前简化的日益先进和详细的理解的支持下,电子计算已经成熟为一个学术主导的领域。越来越多的经验证据表明,可持续发展可以实现可操作性和规模化,提供可观的环境效益,并与社会价值观和优先事项保持一致。虽然容易受到批评,但行政长官引发的希望和势头正在创造比其他可持续发展概念更切实的好处。需要进一步的研究来确定其长期的优点、缺点以及与替代方法的互补性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Industrial Ecology
Journal of Industrial Ecology 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
117
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Industrial Ecology addresses a series of related topics: material and energy flows studies (''industrial metabolism'') technological change dematerialization and decarbonization life cycle planning, design and assessment design for the environment extended producer responsibility (''product stewardship'') eco-industrial parks (''industrial symbiosis'') product-oriented environmental policy eco-efficiency Journal of Industrial Ecology is open to and encourages submissions that are interdisciplinary in approach. In addition to more formal academic papers, the journal seeks to provide a forum for continuing exchange of information and opinions through contributions from scholars, environmental managers, policymakers, advocates and others involved in environmental science, management and policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书