Critical geographies of the circular economy

Introduction

The negative impacts of resource consumption have long occupied human societies, from localised issues of soil depletion and water management reported in ancient Greek and Roman periods, through to the broader treaties for action set out by the likes of Thomas Malthus, John Stuart Mill and Hans Carl von Carlowitz in the 18th century. These concerns have proved intractable and enduring, forming central pillars of the “Limits to Growth” debates of the 1960s and 1970s (see Meadows et al., 1972), with solutions proposed through the closed-loop economics ideas of scholars such as Walter R. Stahel and Kenneth Boulding. At the turn of the millennium, the 30-year update of the Limits to Growth report (see Meadows et al., 2004) found many of the negative trends identified in the 1970s persisted, creating a bleak picture of an unsustainable economic system that has been regularly reiterated across the global state of the environment reports ever since (CBD, 2020; IPBES, 2019; IPCC 2023; UNEP, 2019).

The degradation of the environment across the planet has reached critical levels, and the unsustainable ways in which we extract, process, use and consume resources are major contributing factors. This has prompted a rapid expansion of Circular Economy research in the second decade of the 21st century (see Figure 1). The uptick in scholarly attention to resources matters under the Circular Economy banner coincides with the adoption of Circular Economy narratives within diverse policy contexts at a range of scales (European Commission, 2020; OECD, 2019, 2020; UNEP, 2024).

Figure 1.

Publications with Circular Economy in the title 2005–2024* (2024 is an incomplete year). Source: Clarivate Web of Science.

Open in new tabDownload slide

The exponential rise in output related to the Circular Economy over the past decade across academia, as well as within policy and private sectors, has led analysts to claim the concept has attained “field status” (Kirchherr et al., 2023a), characterised by epistemic communities, shared methodological perspectives and normative ideals. However, analysis of the disciplinary bases of these outputs shows that the bulk of research on the Circular Economy has been conducted from the perspective of environmental sciences, engineering and economics (see Figure 2). This has shaped the parameters of debates in ways that have marginalised significant social, cultural and political factors generating multifaceted and nuanced critiques of the concept (Gregson et al., 2015; Kirchherr et al., 2017, 2023b).

Figure 2.

Subject area of publications with Circular Economy in the title 2005–2024* (2024 is an incomplete year). Source: Clarivate Web of Science.

Open in new tabDownload slide

As implied above, the central idea of a Circular Economy is to transform the current linear economic model by decoupling economic activity from the consumption of finite resources. To date, the concept of a Circular Economy is predominantly articulated as an ideal end-state, with divergent visions of how it may be realised, reflecting different values, priorities and beliefs (Bauwens et al. 2020; Calisto Friant et al., 2020). There are, however, deep tensions and even contradictions, between these different visions.

Influential advocates, such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,¹ argue that reduced consumption of finite resources will only occur when economies prioritise waste avoidance, when materials already circulating in the economy continue to do so at their highest value and when products are designed and used in ways that they can be shared, reused or repaired and made from renewable (bio-based) resources. However, little is said about reducing consumption demands, as another way to diminish the dependence on consuming resources (Davies et al., 2014), or whether the proposed shift can be accommodated within the existing parameters of the global political economy or not. So while the transition to a circular economy is considered as part of greening the economy, most attention to date has been paid to valorising existing waste streams. This may be considered the first step toward transformation, capturing the low-hanging fruit of waste created by the linear economy, but it fails to grapple with the tricky issue of implementing the concept beyond this, in the face of an entrenched global trade system still governed by linear economy principles.

A key point of departure for this themed issue is to call for a more critical lens to be applied to Circular Economy debates. “Critical” here is used in the sense of questioning the dominant eco-modernisation framing of the ideal of the Circular Economy with its assumed win-wins for both the economy and the environment. It also calls for a centring of social, political and ethical matters that a comprehensive economic transformation to a circular economy will inevitably impact. Simply revalorising residual waste streams will not be sufficient to achieve an economy operating according to circular principles, nor will it address the major societal challenges that motivate the ideal of a Circular Economy: climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution and increasing socio-economic polarisation (WEF, 2024). As the Global Resources Outlook 2024 from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2024) illustrates starkly, sustainable resource use and the reduction of negative environmental impacts necessitates radical changes from business as usual approaches in not only local but also global economies. Certainly, whether the transition to a Circular Economy is compatible with the paradigm of continual growth of material prosperity, is very much in question.

Given the damage already done to planetary systems, circularising the current system in a just way must also address the need for regeneration and restoration. Achieving a truly sustainable Circular Economy will have major implications for the ways societies engage in practices of production and consumption, and how those practices are governed at various scales from individual operations to global economies. Despite this, many key issues, from consumption and care, and values and valuation, through to foundational matters of geo-politics, uneven power relations and diverse cultures remain underplayed in current debates about circularising the economy. This has led to increasingly vocal criticisms of the concept’s evolution and application.

The need for a more critical approach has been foregrounded by research that finds Circular Economy applications elevate technical and economic aspects, while underplaying structural constraints and challenging political contexts (Corvellec et al., 2022). These limitations are rooted in diffuse definitions and vague theoretical underpinnings which rarely engage with concepts of diverse economies, sufficiency and degrowth, and remain wedded to mainstream commercial business models and capitalist logics (see also for example, Deutz et al., 2024b; Genovese and Pansera, 2021; Ghisellini et al., 2016; Lehmann et al., 2023; Siderius and Zink, 2023). As Hobson (2022) argues, Circular Economy scholarship and practice have tended to ignore the central role of humans in enacting the Circular Economy. Yet, it will be impossible to transform how resources are used and consumed, without engaging society. Failing to consider the social impacts and implications of policies on people in particular places is likely to leave Circular Economy interventions operating at the margins of economic activity, forming the basis of grand policy statements that have little hope of implementation or radical disruption (Clube and Tennant, 2023).

So far however, such a critical lens has not been combined sufficiently with a geographical perspective, despite there being key geographical issues around place, scale and human-non-human nature interactions underpinning Circular Economy theory and practice (Morrow and Davies, 2022). This themed issue responds to this research gap and explores what a critical lens can contribute to a geographical understanding of the Circular Economy, and what a geographical perspective can contribute to the critical interrogation of the Circular Economy.

In our discussion of the papers in this editorial, we make a basic distinction between contributions that adopt a critical lens to elaborate on the geographies of the Circular Economy, and those that deepen the critical interrogation of the Circular Economy through a geographical approach. However, many of the papers make a multifaceted contribution to Circular Economy debates. We conclude with a brief reflection on the state of play with regards to critical geographies of the Circular Economy, and what this means for further research.

Elaborating the geographies of the Circular Economy

While geographical aspects of the Circular Economy are still relatively neglected (Williams, 2019a, 2021, 2023), there is a burgeoning strand of literature on elevating geographical concerns (for example, Arsova et al., 2022; Bolger and Doyon, 2019; Bourdin et al., 2022; Calisto Friant et al., 2023; Fratini et al., 2019; Obersteg et al., 2019; Prendeville et al., 2018; Tapia et al., 2019; Veyssière et al., 2022). Building on this emerging strand of literature, the contributions to this themed issue deepen our insights in relation to: context, proximity, flows/scale and the role of spatial planning, through a variety of critical lenses.

Context

It is well established that context—that is environmental, economic, political, technological, cultural, institutional and social characteristics—affects the types of systems, activities and structures that will emerge in particular places (Massey, 2005). It is no surprise then that there are important differences in the ways the Circular Economy is being imagined and actualised in different places. One key variable in this are diverse policy processes and governance structures across countries, sub-national units and supranational bodies. When looking at differences (as well as commonalities) in the way the Circular Economy is conceived and realised, this territorial dimension is a key element.

Two papers in this themed issue (Rajaonson and Chembessi, 2024; Wardeberg et al., 2024) explicitly compare the policy strategies between different governing entities. They show how differences in policies between places create uneven playing fields in which economic and societal actors enact the Circular Economy. They indicate how differences in the context of places (their specific attributes, their specific governance arrangements and historical contingencies) shape the direction of policy; and that effective strategies should also be specific to places (that is, take the specific qualities, assets, needs and ambitions of a place into account). Moreover, they provide insight into the commonalities of the challenges that policy-makers face, and what is needed to overcome these challenges.

Wardeberg et al. (this issue; 2024) compare Circular Economy strategies at the national level for Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, and assess these in terms of the directionality they provide. They observe that the Circular Economy strategies tend to be broadly similar in vocabulary and framing, being vague and lacking clear political vision with actionable steps. The strategies thus have limited potential in terms of fostering a tailored Circular Economy transition, as they are inadequate to support the alignment and mobilisation of all relevant stakeholders. Furthermore, the strategies fail to confront the scale and transformative nature of the changes needed and are insufficiently linked to the specific conditions and assets in each of the countries. The paper suggests that these shortcomings may be overcome through more participatory and bottom-up processes in formulating such strategies; but future research is needed to corroborate this. Meanwhile, adopting a different scale of analysis, Rajaonson and Chembessi (this issue; 2024) compare Circular Economy roadmaps produced by 15 local governments in Canada. In contrast to Wardeberg et al. (2024), they find that local attributes, such as resource endowment and economic activities, have influenced the content of roadmaps. This contextual specificity is linked to the entrepreneurship of the instigators of the roadmaps and how they interacted with the broader institutional context in which they operate. The authors argue that supporting these roadmap instigators who are committed to policy tailored to local needs is crucial for driving change, particularly in areas with less experience in sustainability.

Three other papers broaden our understanding of how context matters for the way the Circular Economy takes shape and is imagined in different places, moving beyond the focus on governments and their policies (Lambert, 2024; Marjanovic and Williams, 2024; Sæther, 2024). Adopting a multi-scalar perspective, Sæther (this issue; 2024) looks at how the particular system of territorial governance and planning as well as the specific endowment of natural resources, shapes the management of construction materials in the Greater Oslo region in Norway. This has implications for the potential to implement principles of circularity through construction in Oslo as the city continues to expand. A comparison is made with cities in the Netherlands, where there has been more progress in this regard. Lambert (this issue; 2024) also looks at a large and growing European city, and how circularity is enacted there in relation to brewing. She shows how the interplay of different types of imaginaries (for example, material, community and spatial) informs how circularity is envisioned and practiced within the brewing sector in Brussels in Belgium. She argues that circularity in beer-making (by using surplus bread from mass retail as an ingredient in local beer production), aligns with narratives of craft, creativity and innovation within the (re-)development of cities, ultimately feeding into dynamics that may exacerbate disparities within and across places. Conversely in shrinking cities and regions, there may be greater scope for Circular Economy experiments to emerge that are more radical and disruptive. This is explored in the paper by Marjanovic and Williams (2024) in which they contrast the evolution of the Circular Economy agenda in two shrinking communities. In the Finnish case—Satakunta—a coalition of local governments and business have harnessed the manufacturing legacy of the region, to pursue economic and demographic growth through new investments in the industrial circular economy and further development of industrial symbiosis. In the Dutch case—Parkstad Limburg—a coalition of regional government and local stakeholders have focussed on circular construction and urban mining as an approach for tackling redundant housing and infrastructure and generating new expertise and new jobs. They conclude that the way Circular Economy takes shape in certain places, is to some extent conditioned by distinct configurations of actors, institutions and discourses but still driven by existing interests, upholding prevailing political priorities.

The scope for actors at the sub-national level to effect wider and transformative systemic changes therefore appears to be limited, as they rely on existing structures, relations and actors in the wider political economy of the prevailing system which at the nation-state level tends to produce bland statements of intent with few specific goals and a lack of engagement with the radical shifts needed to move from a linear to circular economy. This is a recurring theme of several other papers in this issue (Barford and Ahmad, 2024; Deutz et al., 2024a; England et al., 2024; Ersoy and Lagendijk, 2024; Thompson et al., 2024).

Proximity

Another geographical notion that is highly relevant in relation to the Circular Economy is closeness in time or space; or proximity. The significance of geographical proximity between actors, activities and assets in taking steps towards a Circular Economy and in undertaking necessary innovations, appears in five papers in this issue (Chembessi et al., 2024; Clifton et al. 2024; Deutz et al., 2024a, Fromhold-Eisebith, 2024; Meili et al. 2024). It is certainly more economically desirable for most “waste” streams (for example, organic waste and construction waste) to be managed locally (Williams, 2021) and it is only feasible for high-value secondary resources to be transported internationally. Similar economic and convenience arguments apply to the sharing of certain goods and facilities between consumers or businesses, as part of the reduction of the use of new resources (for example, Lynch, 2023). Localising circular systems would also reduce emissions from transporting resources as well as increasing resource security locally. Beyond this, however, geographical proximity between actors, activities and assets plays a role in other ways as well in the context of shifting to a Circular Economy.

Chembessi et al. (this issue; 2024) explore the importance of the proximity of various stakeholders and available resources in moving to a Circular Economy using two case studies, one in Canada (Kamouraska region in Quebec) the other in France (La Rochelle conurbation). They find that incorporating proximity helps address the challenges of implementing a circular economy in four key ways. First, geographical proximity facilitates the deployment of available tangible resources between actors. Second, organisational proximity is needed to support the cooperation between actors, and the development and exchange of intangible resources such as knowledge and know-how. Third, organisational proximity (a feeling of belonging, shared understandings and knowing how to collaborate) can help overcome resistance to change and other implementation challenges. Fourth, proximity (in both forms) enables the creation of solutions that are tailored to local resources and needs.

Meili et al. (this issue; 2024) explore the importance of proximity in terms of knowledge held by firms in relation to the Circular Economy. Examining 1400 firms in Switzerland, they find that the availability of specific knowledge related to the Circular Economy within a district has a positive effect on the Circular Economy innovations of firms located there. This effect is not found when geographical distance is examined at a smaller scale (municipal level) or at a larger scale (cantonal level). Furthermore, they find that the availability of general forms of knowledge within a region (in addition to CE-specific knowledge) stimulates the innovation of firms, suggesting that spillovers between technologies play a role as well.

Flows and scale

Any move to a Circular Economy would entail changes in the ways materials flow through the economy, and therefore also flow through space, restructuring supply chains and their geographies, particularly if circular business models were adopted by large, multinational firms (see for example, Bocken et al., 2018). This raises questions about the spatial scale at which the Circular Economy will or should operate, and how actors, relations, structures and processes at different scales will or should interact in moving towards a Circular Economy. Certainly, there is an increase in support for localised resource looping systems, which can ensure more resource security and resilience in an age of geopolitical upheaval. Indeed, some argue that geopolitical upheaval could benefit the transition to a Circular Economy, as nations seek to become more self-sufficient. However, achieving a just and regenerative circular transition requires balancing geopolitical interests with equitable resource distribution and sustainable practices.

Examining the reconfiguration of international value chains in recycled plastics Barford and Ahmad (this issue; 2024) look at global flows of plastic waste, tracing collaborations aimed at transforming linear production processes into more circular systems, while also addressing some of the social and economic injustices associated with waste-picking work in lower-income countries. The research highlights the importance of partnerships between multinationals and smaller, locally grounded organisations in fostering Circular Economy initiatives that promote social justice and environmental sustainability. However, the authors note that these “responsibility fixes” are often partial and patchy, entailing only rather minimal changes to corporates’ core business models. The research argues for greater recognition and support for the social dimensions of circular economy initiatives, particularly in lower-income countries. Similarly, England et al. (this issue; 2024) provide a perspective from the Global South on the local impacts of reconfigured international supply chains as part of the Circular Economy.

Building on the concept of Global Destruction Networks, Bryson et al. (this issue; 2024) interrogate how moving to more circular business models will affect supply chains (or production networks) and their spatialities. They suggest that stronger international Waste Reduction Networks will be needed where diverse actors work together to extend the useful lives of commodities and delaying their entry to the waste stream. They investigate this concept by looking at 17 European and US clothing firms that are engaging in sustainable ways of production, designing for longevity, facilitating repair of their products, take-back programmes for resale and upcycling and offering rental schemes. They find that many existing Waste Reduction Networks are limited to national and regional levels, given the commercial, legal and practical constraints in operating repair activities, take-back programmes and rental schemes at greater distances and beyond certain jurisdictions. However, new intermediaries and platforms may help in overcoming these constraints.

The conceptualisation of flows in a Circular Economy and the levels of scale at which these operate, is also taken up by Zavos and Pyyhtinen (this issue; 2024) who critique the overly optimistic and technoscientific aspirations of prevalent Circular Economy statements. Instead, they propose a trans-scalar imagination that recognises the multiplicity and messiness of scales at and across which Circular Economy initiatives operate. By challenging existing paradigms of the Circular Economy, the authors emphasise the need for more integrated and fluid frameworks through which the perception and management of waste and resources can be re-imagined. This approach aims to better address the environmental and social challenges associated with current Circular Economy practices, ultimately fostering a more holistic and effective transition towards sustainability.

The role of spatial planning

Circular systems have a physical presence, utilising land, resources and existing infrastructure. How the Circular Economy is to be embedded in spatial terms, constitutes a fourth aspect in the elaboration of the geographies of the circular economy. In much of the Circular Economy literature, land is not even mentioned; yet land is needed if circular activities are to take place (Williams, 2019a). The physical nature of the transition to a Circular Economy suggests an important role for spatial and urban planning. The role of strategic planning, collaborative planning processes and the regulatory aspects of planning have been identified as key levers for delivering circular development (Williams, 2020). The spatial plan can be used to prioritise policies that facilitate the implementation of circular systems, activities and infrastructure. Temporary permissions to use land for circular activities, are becoming increasingly popular for enabling experimentation in European cities (Williams, 2023). The dangers of not considering land and space use in economic transitions are clearly demonstrated by the challenges being created by the growth of many platform economies despite initial claims that this would lead to a reduction in resource use and waste through “sharing” (Davies et al., 2017, 2023).

However, there are serious challenges, which often prevent these temporary experiments from scaling-up and transforming the local development regime as illustrated by Baumgartner et al. (this issue; 2024) who examine the actual materialisation of the Circular Economy at particular locations, focussing on three cases of Circular Economy hubs within the Brussels Capital Region in Belgium. They examine the interplay between regional territorial policies, land value dynamics and the planning system at these locations and identify different pathways that these sites can take. The need for accessible and affordable land for circular projects is demonstrated, as well as a role for public tendering criteria incorporating circularity to support the activity. The study emphasises the importance of the public sector, and particularly planning policy, in the delivery of circular activities in cities given their relatively low-value-added nature compared to other, competing urban uses. Especially in the context of dynamic and expanding cities, intervention in land and real estate markets appears necessary to provide room for emerging circular activities. Such interventions will need to confront fundamental issues of power, politics and value—issues at the heart of critical geographical approaches.

Deepening the critical interrogation of the Circular Economy

The previous section outlined how papers in this themed issue articulate the benefits of applying a geographical lens to interrogations of the Circular Economy, particularly through elevating attention to the role of context, proximity, scales, flows and planning processes in actualising a Circular Economy. Permeating these papers is a recognition that Circular Economy policies and resultant practices are not neutral but are layered on top of persistent inequities and inequalities created by a linear economic system wedded to a growth narrative. In this section we reflect on how papers in this themed issue explore what critical theories can add to a geographically sensitive approach to the Circular Economy along three lines of enquiry: centring political ecology as part of political economy; engaging new models of development; and reconfiguring innovation for people and the planet rather than profit.

Centring political ecology as part of political economy

Part and parcel of a critical geographical approach to the Circular Economy is recognising the interconnections between technology, economy and society and the politics inherent in mediating those interconnections. Transitioning towards a Circular Economy is more than just a technical operation, it will have implications for the way the economy and society functions and interacts with non-human resources and environments. This means moving beyond a political economy-only perspective, to consider political ecologies that consider the way the economy and society are embedded in a wider set of relations with the natural environment (see for example, Bridge, 2008). One entry point into such debates is to examine the spatial patterns of the material flows from nature into the economy and society, the way these materials are then processed, transformed and circulated and ultimately often discarded or emitted back to nature (Hudson, 2012).

There is already a considerable strand of research on “metabolisms” of materials and resources in places and across space (for example, Amenta et al., 2022) but this needs expansion in relation to Circular Economy developments. This task is taken up by Joxe and Bahers (this issue; 2024) who look at the social metabolism of biomass flows as part of the “circular bioeconomy.” Based on a bibliometric analysis and review of the literature on this topic, they propose an analytical framework that combines insights and methods from the fields of political ecology and territorial ecology. This framework offers an improved understanding of the dynamics of the geography of the circular bioeconomy, emphasising the importance of not only looking at material and energy flows, but also decision-making systems, power relations between actors and agricultural practices. The proposed framework has multi-scalar applications, able to analyse smaller areas beyond large cities (rural areas and suburban places), with their particular dynamics and metabolic profiles.

However, the conceptualisation of relations between humans and their environment underlying the research on metabolisms of resource and material flows maybe too strict in its delineation of economy, society and nature; too capitalocentric, in the sense of mainly seeing the value of the natural environment in terms of its value for economic processes. It may moreover be too anthropocentric, in the sense of attributing agency mainly to humans and seeing nature as largely passive. Wuyts (this issue; 2024) advances an alternative conceptualisation, drawing on the work of Bruno Latour, that sees the relations between elements in the economic, societal and natural spheres in terms of assemblages in which these various elements influence each other and act upon each other. Undertaking a multispecies ethnography of community-driven practices in Vorselaar in Belgium, and Røros in Norway, to illustrate and further develop these points Wuyts (2024) establishes that understanding the complex, dynamic and multi-scalar relationships among diverse human and non-human actors, components and processes is vital for unpicking and reconfiguring production and consumption systems. Adopting such a multispecies lens lends a greater sensitivity to previously unseen relations and narratives within landscapes, which may induce a more careful handling of relationships with non-human actors and wider ecologies (See Morrow and Davies, 2022), when moving to a Circular Economy in cities and regions.

Circular Economy and new models of development

Inherent to a critical perspective on the Circular Economy is that the ecomodernist or “green growth” narrative of the Circular Economy has to be judiciously interrogated. Any presumed synergies between various objectives that may underlie the Circular Economy—environmental sustainability, economic growth, social inclusion or resource security—are never presupposed, but are always questioned and subject to empirical examination (see Corvellec et al., 2022; Genovese and Pansera, 2021). A critical interrogation of the Circular Economy also means an explicit consideration of the social and cultural dimensions of the way the ideal is imagined and realised (Ziegler et al., 2023) and the extent to which these destabilise dominant models of development. This leads to two interrelated sets of questions. First, if ecological sustainability and regeneration are to take a higher priority as the objectives for a Circular Economy, can this be combined with economic growth and upholding current levels of material prosperity? Certainly, a Circular Economy made up of technological innovations and rather limited changes to the way the current economic system operates, will not be sufficient (Lehmann et al., 2023). As advocated by proponents of “postgrowth,” “a-growth” and “degrowth,” more radical changes will need to take place; recalibrating what constitutes growth and material wealth (for example, Hickel, 2020; Jackson, 2009; Raworth, 2017). Second, how can transitions to a Circular Economy be integrated within visions of social progress? Here discussions on diverse economies and moving beyond GDP as a key indicator of development are productive (see Crisp et al., 2023; Gibson-Graham and Dombroski, 2020; Pike et al., 2017), with proposals for alternative approaches to development that meet wider well-being and inclusion goals, such as the Well-being Economy, the Foundational Economy, and Community Wealth Building (Foundational Economy Collective, 2018; Thompson, 2021; Tomaney, 2017).

Geographical research is already making important contributions to these debates (for example, Gregson et al., 2015; Hobson and Lynch, 2016; Holmes, 2018; Lekan et al., 2021; Wildeboer and Savini, 2022), and four papers in this themed issue build directly on this work (Deutz et al., 2024a; England et al., 2024; Ersoy and Lagendijk, 2024; Thompson et al., 2024). New practices, discourses and imaginations with regard to the Circular Economy are already emerging in some places and have been given social and cultural significance with reference to a broader set of values, norms and ambitions (for example, local traditions, social justice, forms of progressivism) but there are also tensions and trade-offs. This is illustrated by Deutz et al. (this issue; 2024a) through a case study of the developing Circular Economy in Hull, an industrial city on the East coast of England, where they assess the distribution of socio-economic benefits that have arisen. While finding that policy goals of inclusivity (or a “just transition”) are not accomplished, the study does reveal that actors cooperating and collaborating across different sectors on Circular Economy initiatives in a place, have some scope to address social and spatial disparities. However, they note the scope for this is ultimately quite limited, given the conditions, imperatives and contingencies offered by the wider policy and economic contexts. Local circular economies are not isolated entities and will inevitably be constrained by material and other flows beyond their territories. Indeed, it is argued by Thompson et al. (this issue; 2024), drawing on a world-ecology perspective to interrogate dominant approaches to circularity in Amsterdam, that Circular Economy is primarily seen as an “urban sustainability fix” within the capitalist system: a way of solving increasing difficulties in the supply of essential resources from nature in other territories, by recycling waste products within its urban spaces, whilst also extending the city’s competitive advantages in the prevailing system. But at the same time, they also find experimentation going on within the city, mainly at the grassroots level (also see Rut and Davies, 2024; Weymes and Davies, 2019), that may be seen as prefiguring more sustainable forms of postcapitalism. As Amsterdam occupies a leading and frontrunning position within the geographical political economy of the green transition across the globe, these findings point to the shape the Circular Economy seems to be taking more widely, as well as to the contradictions that come with it.

In an effort to understand why certain interpretations of a Circular Economy have become dominant, Ersoy and Lagendijk (this issue; 2024) use a critical–relational perspective to theorise the relations between practices, discourses, axioms and metrics in relation to the Circular Economy. They examine policy and practice at national and local levels in the Netherlands and highlight the role of demonstration—for example, practical working exemplars—as a precondition for the change in dominant discourses, axioms and metrics. They also emphasise that organisational and political work is required in which “transition brokers” connecting knowledge, resources and people, play a crucial role in enacting change. Shifting scales, England et al. (this issue; 2024) bring a Global South perspective to debates and contribute to the critical geographical examination of the Circular Economy by shedding light on the structural and geographical hierarchies in its current conceptualisation. They look at the Circular Economy in the context of the fashion industry in Kenya, from both the point of view of local fashion designers and of global market forces. Fashion designers in Kenya operate from a set of cultural practices, as well as creative, entrepreneurial strategies targeted at the local market in Kenya, which are already consistent with the Circular Economy. But Kenya is also a site to which second-hand garments are being exported from the Global North as part of the Circular Economy efforts there. Moreover, Kenya is a site for the production of fashion and textiles meant for export (in Export Processing Zones); and also serves as a site for importing discarded clothes and textile waste. As these elements come together in Kenya, they reveal the tensions in the emerging circular fashion economy across the globe, as well as opportunities provided by circular economy innovations. The research thus highlights the need for further contextualised and geographically diverse studies of the Circular Economy, and to attend to how the Circular Economy is shaped by persistent patterns of unequal exchange.

Reconfiguring innovation

If resource use is to be compatible with the regeneration and healthy functioning of the global environment, much more radical and focussed changes in the way resources are handled in economies and societies will be necessary. A reconsideration of innovation (and indeed exnovation) is required for a just transition to a sustainable and circular economy. Geographical research plays a key role here, exploring how innovations emerge, are adopted, spread and integrated (or not) into systems (for example, Shearmur et al., 2016). There is already a large literature on the geographies of innovation, which has in recent years become more attuned to the role innovation plays in addressing grand societal challenges and transitions towards sustainability. Indeed, such notions as “transformative innovation” and “challenge-/mission-oriented innovation” are increasingly being embraced, and their geographical aspects thought through (for example, Sotarauta, 2023; Trippl et al., 2024).

Two papers in this themed issue contribute to the conceptualisation of innovation in relation to the Circular Economy, from a geographical point of view. Fromhold-Eisebith (this issue; 2024), expands the concept of “challenge-oriented regional innovation system” (CORIS) to address several innovation demands that are relevant when moving to a Circular Economy, but which were not covered adequately by the original concept. Using this enriched concept, she assesses the innovation system in the city of Aachen given its ambition to be a Circular City which leads to a number of recommendations for attending to deficiencies in the regional innovation system. Innovation also appears as a central pillar in Clifton et al. (this issue; 2024) who advance understanding of how innovation processes happen in real places as part of the transformation to a Circular Economy in Wales in the UK. They build on the framework of Mission-oriented Innovation Systems (MIS) to look at how top-down, rather fuzzy ambitions for a Circular Economy, are interpreted, given substance and implemented to attain actionable directionality across a diverse range of stakeholders in the region. They focus on the dynamics between stakeholders and the role of the government within this, as they are trying to shape a MIS directed at a transformation to the Circular Economy in Wales, finding that this is only partially successful so far.

Overall, these papers show the complexity and centrality of innovation as part of the transition to the Circular Economy, requiring wide-ranging changes in technologies, production systems, business models, attitudes, interaction between actors and governance.

Conclusion

The papers in this themed issue certainly progress understanding of the geographies of the Circular Economy from a critical point of view. However, the ambition with this themed issue went further, to also explore how geographical research can enhance critical interrogation of the Circular Economy. The contributions to this themed issue have undoubtedly done this, each offering nuanced readings of the ways that the Circular Economy can be conceptualised and realised across places and space. Indeed, several contributions develop important insights for augmenting a critical approach to the Circular Economy with respect to: relations between economy, society and the natural environment; new conceptions of social progress and expanding our understanding of innovation in the context of the Circular Economy. Nonetheless, further work is required to push these critical geographies of the Circular Economy further; to widen the voices present in debating and creating Circular Economy imaginaries and to ensure that those more inclusive visions of Circular Economy futures are seriously considered by governing actors.

To date, the geography of knowledge production concerning the Circular Economy has been highly uneven, with the bulk of research emanating from—and being set in—Europe and North America. It is imperative to develop broader perspectives about what Circular Economies might mean in other settings (Schröder et al., 2019) and from diverse perspectives (Fitzgerald and Davies, 2022). The themed issue reflects some progress on this front—notably the papers by England et al. (2024) and Barford and Ahmad (2024)—offering perspectives from the Global South, while other papers (see Bryson et al., 2024; Thompson et al., 2024) provide insights into the evolving multi-scalar geo-economics and geo-politics of the Circular Economy.

Overall, the impression one gets from the papers in this themed issue, is that the way the Circular Economy is currently actualised across different countries and places is mostly as a way of “patching up” unsustainable tendencies in the current economic system (and perhaps even of enabling the persistence of these unsustainable tendencies). There are productive examples of micro-shifts in particular enterprises, even within some progressive sub-national localities, but these are largely eddies of circulatory working counter to the predominant flow of activity that remains relentlessly linear and extractivist. Transitioning to a more radical, and therefore more disruptive, version of the Circular Economy—one which would be genuinely sustainable, regenerative and socially just—seems exceedingly difficult to achieve in the absence of change also to global trade and governance architectures. This said, many of the papers do offer some foundational work in this regard by making visible uneven power relations, tensions and contradictions between policy and practice and persistent inequalities that prevent more radical transformation.

It is, nonetheless, surprising that Circular Economy debates have not been more engaged with the rapidly expanding literature on the geographies of sustainability transitions (for example, Binz et al., 2020; Chlebna et al., 2023; Hansen and Coenen, 2015; Miörner and Binz, 2021). Expanding work at this intersection would help focus the examination of transitions in certain sectors and provisioning systems (such as food, housing, clothing, etc.) in places and across scales; and thus provide a better assessment of where the Circular Economy may be heading, providing a critical lens is maintained. Most significantly, perhaps, is the need for radical and collaborative inter- and transdisciplinary research to address the manifest complexities involved in transforming local and global economic systems that have emerged over centuries and are currently geared towards the continual and highly uneven accumulation of material wealth at the expense of unrelenting environmental degradation (Chlebna et al., 2024). Central to this is the need to envision, collectively, not only what kind of Circular Economy is desired, but also to co-create and navigate pathways and practices that will support people and the planet, leaving no-one behind.

Footnotes

References