The Circular Economy (CE) has surged into mainstream policy in regions such as China and Europe, yet its scientific foundations remain fragmented. Despite a 112% increase in academic publications between 2014 and 2017, bibliometric studies reveal the absence of a unified conceptual framework. CE’s diverse origins—from Kenneth E. Boulding’s “spaceship earth” analogy to industrial ecology, regenerative design, and eco-efficiency—have led to competing interpretations. The term itself was introduced by Pearce and Turner in 1989, advocating a shift from linear to closed-loop economic systems.
Over decades, CE discourse has evolved through distinct phases: the “Preamble Period” (1945–1980), “Excitement Period” (1980–2010), and the ongoing “Validity Challenge Period” since 2010. Early technocentric views, focused on waste management and efficiency, gave way to integrated socio-economic perspectives known as “Circularity 3.0.” Within this, reformist approaches aim to adapt capitalist systems for circular futures, while transformative approaches call for a fundamental overhaul of socio-economic structures.
Transformational and reformist perspectives now dominate the literature, together accounting for 70% of reviewed concepts. This shift is partly attributed to the 2008 economic crisis, which eroded confidence in traditional systems and renewed interest in systemic sustainability. Velenturf and Purnell have noted that CE and sustainable development share roots in systems ecology, yet explicit connections between them are rarely addressed.
Sustainability itself is contested. Originating in forestry’s balance principle, it expanded into ecological sciences and later into the “triple bottom line” framework—environment, society, economy. Sustainable development, popularized by the Brundtland Report, is divided between “Weak Sustainability,” which allows substitution of natural capital with human capital, and “Strong Sustainability,” which treats natural capital as irreplaceable. The tension between these narratives hinges on the role of technology versus systemic social change.
Geissdoerfer et al. have identified key similarities between CE and sustainability: both emphasize environmental protection for current and future generations, require inclusive cooperation, and see innovation and regulation as drivers of change. Differences include CE’s narrower focus on decoupling growth from environmental harm and its neglect of social improvements. Kirchherr et al.’s review of 114 CE definitions found that only 13% incorporate all three sustainability arenas, with economic and environmental aspects dominating and social aspects largely absent.
This imbalance has practical consequences. Kalmykova et al. observed that CE literature leans toward eco-efficiency rather than eco-effectiveness, while Murray et al. noted the lack of discourse on equitable societies. The predominance of industrial contexts sidelines social concerns, although transformative CE studies increasingly highlight their importance for stakeholder acceptance.
Implementation barriers stem from CE’s role as an “empty signifier,” interpreted differently across sectors. Strategies often focus on materials, products, and technical processes without systemic integration. Ruiz-Real et al. catalogued nine “R-imperatives” such as reduce, reuse, and recycle, yet practitioners’ reductionist approaches risk rebound effects, burden shifting, and unsustainable consumption. Korhonen et al. emphasize thermodynamic limits, system boundary constraints, and socio-economic path dependencies as challenges.
To address these issues, literature calls for CE models that are economically synergistic, socially inclusive, and environmentally effective. This requires moving beyond narrow industrial strategies to holistic collaboration involving regulators, businesses, policymakers, and wider societal actors.
Systems Thinking (ST) offers the necessary framework. Rooted in the same systems ecology that underpins CE, ST examines the relationships and dynamics within complex systems, avoiding the pitfalls of reductionism. Meadows and Allen & Merali stress that understanding the whole requires analysing interconnections, delays, and feedback loops. Applied to CE, ST can integrate action-oriented sustainability science with action-led strategies, identify leverage points, and anticipate unintended consequences.
By viewing production, distribution, and consumption as interconnected, ST addresses challenges such as rebound effects, path dependencies, and problem shifting. It also counters absolutist claims by providing nuanced, dynamic analysis. In measurement, ST can guide the development of indicators that reflect environmental, social, and economic realities, avoiding superficial metrics.
Given CE’s interdisciplinary nature and fragmented strategies, a systems perspective is essential to bridge gaps between theory and practice. As Blomsma and Brennan, Babbitt et al., and Skene have argued, systemic assessments can inform policies that are economically viable, environmentally protective, and socially equitable, ensuring CE’s legitimacy as a sustainable development pathway.