I first learned about the concept of the Circular Economy at Wege Prize Highschool Collaborative Studio, a summer workshop that immerses student participants in the solving of complex “wicked” problems. It seemed like a flawless solution to the ever-growing problem of waste. After doing more research, I came across Reading Critiques of the Circular Economy by Corvellec, Stowell, and Johansson. The authors raise many pointed critiques which highlight uncertainties of the concept. In the workshop, it was easy to imagine that clever design and reuse strategies could solve complex problems. The article made me realize that these solutions often overlook broader social, economic, and political factors that influence whether circular practices can succeed at scale.
One of the points made in the article that was most interesting to me was the fact that even cyclical systems “consume resources and create waste and emissions.” This surprised me, as it was never something discussed in my conversations about the circular economy. Even the most carefully planned recycling or reuse system still relies on energy, labor, and infrastructure, and each step can generate emissions or other unintended impacts. This insight pushed me to think past the models and consider the real-world consequences of implementing circular solutions, reminding me that it is important to look at what has worked in the past to review for the future.
Another interesting thought posed by the article was that by increasing the availability of materials made from waste, we paradoxically increase the demand for new materials. This theoretically makes sense, but so does the concept of the circular economy. The counterintuitive dynamic made me reconsider the assumptions I had about circular solutions: making recycled or reused materials more accessible doesn’t automatically reduce extraction or production, it can actually encourage more consumption overall. It highlights how solutions that seem purely positive on the surface can have unintended consequences, and how careful we need to be when designing systems that aim to be sustainable. This made me realize that innovation needs to be developed with human behavior and economic structures. Without attention to incentives, culture, and policy, circular solutions may inadvertently reinforce the very problems they are meant to solve.
Ultimately, the article did not lead me to give up on circularity. In fact, there were many parts of the article I did not agree with. Instead, it helped me see it as a concept that requires more nuance than its current framing allows. This article allowed me to expand my depth on what sustainability and circularity means, and how it might be implemented. A healthy idea should be able to withstand pressure, criticism, and reinterpretation. The authors’ critique offered an invitation to look closely, question, and treat circularity as one tool among many. My main takeaway is that the circular economy may be flawed, and it is through recognizing and questioning these flaws that we can better understand and improve it.
Impact Blueprint 