The circular economy and economic growth – An irreconcilable tradeoff?

The European (Green?) Deal: a systematic analysis of environmental sustainability

“…Regarding economic growth, a lesson learned from the 6th and 7th EAPs is the trade‐off between economic growth and the use of natural resources, on the one hand, and between economic growth and waste generation, on the other (Ecologic Institute et al, 2011; European Environment Agency, 2018; Technopolis Group, 2018; Trinomics, 2019). The EGD primarily aims to address this challenge through a transition towards a CE, but without taking into account criticism concerning sustainability in a CE (Haupt & Hellweg, 2019; Kalmykova et al, 2018; Kirchherr et al, 2017; Schultz, 2022). Moreover, the EGD focuses on a competitive and growth‐based low‐carbon economy (European Commission, 2019b), but it does not seem to reflect the magnitude of the challenge involved in developing this type of economy as a sustainable CE.…”

“…The concept is not as new as frequently claimed, it is controversial and confusing and value retention options show divergence (Reike et al, 2018); its expectations on environmental performance are sometimes misleading and counterproductive (Haupt & Hellweg, 2019); its main objective is economic prosperity over environmental and social aspects (Kirchherr et al, 2017); and its implementation rarely suggests changes to the economy, keeping its actual potential largely unexplored (Kalmykova et al, 2018). Furthermore, a prospering debate among scholars emerged discussing whether-and to what extent-the concepts of CE and economic growth are compatible (Schultz, 2022). On one hand, the 'post-growth circularity perspective' defends a downscale of the economy to keep it in biophysical boundaries, complementary to its circularity, as gross domestic product is coupled with material footprint and ecological impact (Bauwens, 2021;Hickel & Kallis, 2020).…”

“…Furthermore, a prospering debate among scholars emerged discussing whether—and to what extent—the concepts of CE and economic growth are compatible (Schultz, 2022). On one hand, the ‘post‐growth circularity perspective’ defends a downscale of the economy to keep it in biophysical boundaries, complementary to its circularity, as gross domestic product is coupled with material footprint and ecological impact (Bauwens, 2021; Hickel & Kallis, 2020).…”

Finding new purpose: Electric vehicle battery repurposing as a case for implementing a circular economy in automotive industry

“…Finally, others recently attempted to moderate the discussion, stating that both positions are indeed compatible if combined in a constructive manner (Schultz, 2022).…”

“…At the same time, implementing a CE must be linked to absolute reductions in resource consumption for providing products and services in order to achieve decoupling and prevent damages to global eco-systems (Meadows et al, 1972). In light of this finding, one can expect that the enherent ambiguity of adding meaning while pursuing reduction in implementing a CE will continue to stir discussions in the scientific community in the future (Schultz, 2022).…”