Peter Davies-Dennis identifies the systemic barriers in the way of a circular economy transition.
What would a circular economy mean in practice? Less waste, a healthier planet and environment, and a stronger economy. Given these potential benefits, the question must be: why hasn’t society shifted to a circular model already?
Sustainable development vs Capitalism
In a capitalist system, growth is king. The trade-off to sustain that growth is unsustainable levels of consumption. Things are designed to be made, thrown away, and replaced. Take, make, throw.
This is a linear model of consumption: a straight line on a graph that is only ever rising, in theory.
For a long time, many experts felt that sustainable development and a capitalist system were incompatible. The solution was a different political and economic model, or, at the very least, policy intervention that requires businesses to prioritise sustainability over profit.
This was a view shared by Wayne Hubbard, CEO of ReLondon, until he discovered the concept of the circular economy as a student.
“The old notion of sustainable development seems to me to be one of making the best use of resources, in other words, making things last a bit longer and reducing consumption, which means citizens, especially those in the global south, have to make do with less – but capitalism as we know it depends upon the creation of demand for stuff,” Hubbard told Circular Online.
“The circular economy effectively changes how we consume – in many ways, moving us from consumers to users.”
A circular economy is ‘regenerative by design’, Hubbard explained. This is because the core business models, such as reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, and repurpose, are not extractive (linear); they’re circular.
However, these models are not only about reducing waste and consumption, but they have all been successfully monetised – increasingly by some of the largest brands, with the biggest market share, globally.
IKEA operates a successful buyback and resale service, while Apple has a certified refurbished products range. These are just two examples of how circular principles incentivise sustainability by unlocking new revenue streams.
Circularity also protects the economy from geopolitical and climate-related shocks, Hubbard told us, by significantly reducing the impact of fragile supply chains.
However, well-documented ‘linear lock-ins’ are significant barriers to moving towards a circular model. These range from our finance system to existing infrastructure; ingrained structures that form the global economy.
Hubbard argues that while this is a significant barrier, there is the potential for communities to deploy and adopt circular strategies locally.
“There are now a plethora of off the shelf toolkits and examples for cities, towns, neighbourhoods and communities to adopt,” Hubbard explained.
“So while national and international governmental organisations consider these problems, local government and local communities can crack on – delivering green jobs, economic growth and resilience and helping to alleviate the cost of living crisis.”
Adopting these circular principles at a local level requires buy-in from the general public, so the question is: do they want change?
What actually is people’s attitude to waste?
For people whose job it is to reduce waste, often the mistake they make is assuming the general public cares about waste as much as they do.
How many people interact with waste begins and ends with their kerbside waste collections.
“It’s long been the case that waste management enthuses those who work in it to the point where we assume everyone else is as interested as we are. They’re not,” Stephen Bates, Founder and Director at The Mobius Agency, told us.
“People just need to know what goes in which bin and when to put it out. Too often, services are designed to suit the operator rather than the user, which only widens the gap.”
Bates, who is Chair of CIWM’s Behaviour Change SEG, said the focus must be placed on user needs. While waste management has constraints, he argues that starting with the user will always lead to better-aligned services.
“We’re currently working with the government of Barbados on introducing kerbside recycling for the first time,” Bates said.
“As a smaller country, public services are more visible and tangible. We’ve invested significant time in understanding expectations, not just around recycling, but waste more broadly.”
The strategy and communications plan were built from the user’s perspective, Bates explained.
“Testing shows this approach has generated not just acceptance of the service, but real demand for it. If you can create demand, you’re more than halfway there.”
Ultimately, the factors that most influence public support, Bates argues, are respect for policies, trust in the institutions delivering them, and the quality of the services themselves.
“People need to understand the reasons behind policies and believe in them. Trust and service quality are closely linked; the latter drives the former.”
“That’s why service providers must focus on delivering consistently high-quality services. Failing to do so risks undermining trust and eroding any support built through policy or communication efforts.”
Why can’t governments reach a consensus?
One of the most ambitious examples of political negotiations in recent years has been the UN’s Global Plastic Treaty.
But, so far, these talks have failed. Negotiations have collapsed multiple times, and countries are no closer to finding a consensus on plastic.
In many ways, the reasons why these talks have failed are a demonstration of how big ‘linear lock-ins’ are as barriers to change. However, these barriers don’t expose finance or infrastructure issues, but the convergence of diametrically opposed geopolitical goals.
Thais Vojvodic, Director of Partnerships at Common Seas, said that the UK-based non-profit had ‘repeatedly observed’ a small minority of petrostates using the rule of consensus to block progress.
A recent report by the Global Plastics Policy Centre, based at the University of Portsmouth’s Revolution Plastics Institute, found the Treaty process risks failing without significant reform.
Vojvodic said the report echoed Common Seas’s experience participating in several INC sessions as a civil society observer.
She continued that the appointment of Ambassador Julio Cordano as the new Chair of negotiations, and the roadmap for progress Cordano recently set out, indicated that things might be moving towards a ‘structural reset’.
“The Chair’s intent to move to a simplified ‘Chair’s Text’ can be a valuable tool for diplomatic speed,” Vojvodic told Circular Online.
“But, if it removes ambitious upstream measures, such as legally-binding production caps, the result could be a treaty that only manages the most obvious symptoms of plastic pollution without tackling the root cause.”
The root cause, Vojvodic says, is plastic production.
“If production is not capped, the world will overflow with plastic that no recycling system can ever keep up with – harming our ecosystems, economies and health in the process,” she said.
Oil-producing nations view these discussions as existential; they’re not focused on reducing waste or discussing an alternative circular economy model. Their priority is profit and power.
“Oil-producing nations and petrochemical lobbyists have been framing the crisis as a ‘waste management’ issue rather than a systemic issue – attempting to sidetrack the important matter of plastic production,” Vojvodic told Circular Online.
“By now, we know that this is not enough: plastic production is on track to triple by 2060 without intervention, and less than 10% is recycled globally.”
To achieve a Global Plastics Treaty that addresses plastic production, Vojvodic argues that ‘ambitious countries must hold the line’ and find a way to achieve a treaty ‘guided not by compromise in the interest of consensus, but common sense in the interest of a just and sustainable shared future’.
Is it possible to overcome the barriers?
Everyone will have an experience of trying to change something. It’s common that, even when this change is demonstrably for the best, there will be resistance.
This could come in many forms: it’s too difficult, we can’t afford it, maybe in future, but not right now. Sometimes these objections will be fair; others may be more cynical. Whatever the case, these are barriers that must be overcome.
That way, society can transition to a circular model that reduces waste and supports the environment, without sacrificing economic growth.
