Why We Need Circular Economy 2.0
A decade ago “circular economy” meant keeping products in use, cutting waste, sparing raw materials. Today the word appears on every sustainability slide, yet little has changed: only 11–12 % of EU resources and 6.9 % of global resources come from recycled feedstock (European Commission; circularity-gap.world). If all those “circular” projects worked, these numbers would be climbing—not stuck.
THE UMBRELLA PROBLEM
“Circular economy” covers many moves—recycled content, renting, repair-friendly design, longer use, end-of-life recycling. Each strand matters, but bundling them under one loose label lets firms pick the easiest action and still claim the prize. A factory recycling its own scrap can market an entire product line as “circular,” opening the door to circular-washing.
WHY IT MATTERS
At today’s pace, global raw-material demand could jump 60 % by 2060. Climate goals, biodiversity, and resource security all hinge on reversing that trend; a buzzword without rules won’t do the job.
CIRCULAR 2.0: A FRESH START
We need a tighter, data-driven upgrade:
- state which material flows must shrink—and by how much;
- track a few hard numbers (share of virgin input, repairability, take-back rate, recycled content);
- publish the data so anyone can test the claim.
Clear metrics turn “circular” from a slogan into a measurable goal and let investors, regulators, and customers reward firms that actually cut material use.
When everything is called circular, nothing is. Circular 2.0 gives the idea sharp edges—and a real chance to close the loop
0 Comments