DECEMBER 19 — We all know the story. Our “take–make–waste” economic model is choked by its own waste and voracious appetite for virgin materials. The proposed hero of this story?
The Circular Economy (CE) – a system designed to eliminate waste, keep products and materials in use, and regenerate natural systems.
It’s a compelling vision, one that promises not just a healthier planet, but a more resilient and innovative economy.
But is this transition a foregone conclusion, an inevitable march of progress?
According to a sweeping systematic review of the evidence, the answer is a resounding no. The path to a circular future is not a clear road; it’s a brutal, high–stakes tug–of–war.
The research by Tan, Tan, and Ramakrishna, which synthesizes findings from a wide body of literature, reveals that for every powerful driver pulling us toward a circular model, there is an equally formidable barrier digging in its heels.
Understanding this conflict is key to anyone – policymaker, CEO, or consumer – who genuinely wants to tip the scales.
On one side of the rope, we have a powerful alliance of drivers. First, policy and regulation are no longer a whisper.
The European Green Deal and its Circular Economy Action Plan are no longer abstract concepts; they are binding legislation creating markets for recycled content and punishing wasteful design.
It’s a fundamental re–writing of the rulebook that is forcing entire industries to adapt or perish.
Second is the clear economic and business case.
Forward–thinking companies are no longer seeing circularity as a cost, but as a strategic advantage.
The drivers here are: material cost savings, supply chain security, and the creation of entirely new revenue streams through services like repair, refurbishment, and remanufacturing.
It’s the ultimate “waste equals food” philosophy, but for the balance sheet.
This is coupled with technology and innovation, from AI–powered sorting systems to advanced materials science, making circular processes more efficient.
Finally, there is a powerful cultural and social current.
Consumers are increasingly voting with their wallets, favoring brands with authentic sustainability credentials.
Investors are following suit, with ESG criteria becoming a major factor in capital allocation.
Yet, the other side of the rope is holding strong.
The most immediate is the economic and financial wall.
The review underscores that our entire global economy is built on a linear model.
The upfront costs of transitioning – redesigning products, retooling factories, building reverse–logistics networks – are immense.
Meanwhile, virgin materials are often still cheaper than recycled alternatives, a perverse incentive upheld by longstanding subsidies and externalized environmental costs.
The circular model requires a different kind of math, one that values long–term resilience over short–term quarterly profits.
Next, we face a cultural and behavioral immune system. We are a society of consumers, not users.
The “status quo bias” is powerful, and the convenience of single–use is a hard habit to break.
The review points to a lack of awareness, but it’s deeper than that – it’s a deeply ingrained mindset that newer is always better and that ownership is superior to access.
Then there is the technological and infrastructural gap.
While innovation is a driver, we simply lack the systems at scale to make a full circular economy work.
Our cities aren’t built for efficient collection of diverse material streams, and recycling many complex modern products remains technologically challenging or economically unviable.
Perhaps the most frustrating barrier is institutional and regulatory.
The very policies meant to drive change can sometimes be fragmented, inconsistent, or even contradictory.
The review found a lack of clear standards and definitions (what is “recyclable,” anyway?) that creates confusion and hampers investment.
So, where does this leave us? Stuck in a stalemate? Not necessarily.
Recognizing this tug–of–war is the first step toward winning it.
The findings suggest we need a concerted, multi–pronged effort that amplifies the drivers while systematically cutting the barriers.
Policymakers must be bold and consistent, using sticks like Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and carrots like tax incentives for circular business models to create a level playing field.
Business leaders must move beyond pilot projects and treat circularity as a core tenet of corporate strategy, investing in the R&D and supply chain partnerships that will bring it to scale.
And as individuals, we must use our power as citizens and consumers to demand better – to support companies that are trying, to repair what we have, and to vote for leaders who understand that the future is not linear.
The transition to a circular economy is not a predetermined destiny. It is a choice.
The drivers give us the tools and the motive. It is now up to us to summon the will to overcome the barriers.
The rope is in our hands.
* Professor Datuk Ahmad Ibrahim is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya. He can be reached at [email protected].
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
