[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fryBx61JwUTjsLsBZYxJ1l32CMnt-8IFavztbtIWoptU":3,"settings":89,"lZC6-ce":175,"$fqvxayWv6ROrU2TtfIRYSE3Woa-bi9DsFSYFxG8CkntM":188},{"id":4,"type":5,"cta":6,"cta_link":6,"created_at":7,"updated_at":8,"owner_id":9,"owner_relationship":10,"views":11,"owner":12,"contributors":28,"article_framework_elements":34,"article_industries":35,"article_locations":36,"involved_organisation":37,"collections":38,"image":39,"view_count":11,"contents":45,"canEdit":88},"lZC6","blog",null,"2026-08-04T10:07:01.472Z","2026-08-04T18:07:04.516Z","ce","project-initiator",38,{"id":9,"type":13,"owner_id":14,"about":15,"job_title":6,"url":6,"linkedin":6,"email":6,"staff_of_id":6,"organisation_id":9,"organisation":16,"owner":19,"profile":22},"organisation","56NcOv","",{"id":9,"name":17,"link":18},"Circle Economy","https://circle-economy.com",{"id":14,"first_name":20,"last_name":21},"Circle","Economy",{"id":23,"link":24,"alt":25,"source":6,"created_at":26,"updated_at":27,"article_id":6,"image_profile_id":6,"banner_profile_id":9},"cmm374n1g0001sh01bspouxyc","https://kh-assets.prod.circularity-gap.world/org-profile-avatar/HiKR8W326OYvfBij.jpg","CE logo","2026-02-26T08:23:13.828Z","2026-04-28T13:00:19.131Z",[29],{"contributor_id":9,"contributor":30},{"id":9,"type":13,"owner_id":14,"about":15,"job_title":6,"url":6,"linkedin":6,"email":6,"staff_of_id":6,"organisation_id":9,"organisation":31,"owner":32,"profile":33},{"id":9,"name":17,"link":18},{"id":14,"first_name":20,"last_name":21},{"id":23,"link":24,"alt":25,"source":6,"created_at":26,"updated_at":27,"article_id":6,"image_profile_id":6,"banner_profile_id":9},[],[],[],[],[],{"id":40,"link":41,"alt":42,"source":17,"created_at":43,"updated_at":44,"article_id":4,"image_profile_id":6,"banner_profile_id":6},"cmsehukcm000nqr01mk601l3j","https://kh-assets.prod.circularity-gap.world/main-image/xF9rxGlLcjuDohcx.jpg","Photo from Circle Economy","2026-08-04T10:07:01.510Z","2026-08-04T10:15:40.446Z",[46],{"id":47,"score":48,"body":49,"status":85,"article_id":4,"created_at":86,"updated_at":87,"published_at":6},"l02C",0,{"title":50,"content":51,"summary":52,"citations":53,"attachment":84},"A degrowth-oriented circular society: What can circular economy practitioners learn from degrowth research?\n","\u003Ch2>Introduction to the current planetary predicament\u003C/h2>\u003Cp>Humanity can coordinate thousands of satellites in space and transmit endless streams of information directly into the hands of billions of people. Yet, we have been unable to address the most fundamental challenge of our time: ensuring a good life for all within Earth's biophysical boundaries. \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Our failure to do so threatens humanity’s very survival on planet Earth. Today, our socioecological system has led to the overshoot of seven of the nine planetary boundaries, including climate change, biodiversity loss, land-use change, toxic novel entities, freshwater change, ocean acidification, and disruptions to the phosphorus and nitrogen cycles (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.48485/PIK.2025.017\">\u003Cu>Sakschewski et al., 2025\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). In addition to this, over 50% of humanity remains in poverty on less than US$10 (PPP) per day (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://pip.worldbank.org/poverty-calculator\">\u003Cu>World Bank, 2025\u003C/u>\u003C/a>), while many more lack adequate access to food, healthcare, education, water, housing, and sanitation (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09385-1\">\u003Cu>Fanning & Raworth, 2025\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>These crises exist alongside unprecedented concentrations of wealth. The richest 10% of the global population owns 75% of all wealth, while the poorest 50% owns just 2% (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://wir2026.wid.world/\">\u003Cu>Chancel et al., 2026\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). This extreme inequality also translates into deeply unequal patterns of resource use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The richest 10% are responsible for 48% of global GHG emissions, the richest 1% for 17%, while the poorest half of humanity is responsible for just 12% (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://wir2022.wid.world/\">\u003Cu>Chancel et al., 2022\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). The wealthiest 10% emit nine times more than their fair share under a 1.5-degree pathway, while the wealthiest 1% consume about 27 times more than their fair share of planetary resources (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.21201/2023.000001\">\u003Cu>Khalfan et al., 2023\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>This situation is both deeply unjust and unsustainable. On our current trajectory, global temperatures are projected to rise by around 4-degrees, making large swaths of the Earth uninhabitable and disproportionately impacting the most vulnerable communities, particularly in the Global South (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369144092_Earth_for_All\">\u003Cu>Dixson-Declève et al., 2022\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>The circular economy (CE) is now promoted as the solution to our planetary predicament. At its core, the CE seeks to transform production and consumption systems to maximise the social value obtained from natural resources. In practice, however, CE strategies are often implemented from a technocentric perspective, focusing on recycling innovations to increase competitiveness and so-called ‘green growth’. This approach assumes that technological innovation, including advances in resource efficiency, recovery, and decarbonisation, will enable economic growth to be decoupled from environmental degradation. However, the evidence increasingly suggests otherwise. Absolute decoupling of economic growth from environmental degradation has not occurred at the scale or speed required to address climate breakdown and biodiversity collapse, nor is there compelling evidence that it will do so in the future (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964\">\u003Cu>Hickel & Kallis, 2019\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). A narrow focus on resource efficiency and green technologies alone will not be sufficient to put the Earth on a sustainable trajectory, while ensuring a good life for all of humanity (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2025.1527052\">\u003Cu>Calisto Friant et al. 2025\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). \u003C/p>\u003Cimg src=\"https://kh-assets.prod.circularity-gap.world/content-image/exoMd2eweQQlp3hI.jpg\" alt=\"Degrowth research\" title=\"Circle Economy\" />\u003Cp>\u003Cbr />This calls for a broader systemic perspective: one that questions not only how resources are used, but also the economic structures that drive ever-increasing production and consumption. It is thus vital to think of systemic changes beyond economic growth, and thereby, beyond the growth imperative embedded within capitalist economies. This article explores how insights from degrowth research can improve our understanding of a circular economy transition and the ways we implement CE projects, initiatives, and policies. It concludes by proposing a set of interrelated ‘Rs’, or value-retention strategies, that can help practitioners apply these insights in practice. \u003C/p>\u003Ch2>Degrowth research and its core insights\u003C/h2>\u003Cp>Economic growth is often showcased as the principal mechanism through which societies flourish. It is expected not only to alleviate poverty and improve human well-being, but also to enable more sustainable production and consumption through technological innovation, such as electric vehicles, renewable energy, and advanced recycling. Yet empirical evidence does not support these claims (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00310-3\">\u003Cu>Kallis et al. 2025\u003C/u>\u003C/a>).\u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Since the 1970s, degrowth research has examined the social and ecological limits of growth-dependent economies. Its central argument is that economies organised around perpetual economic growth are incompatible with long-term social and ecological sustainability. Instead, degrowth scholars argue for post-growth, and ultimately post-capitalist, economic systems that prioritise social and planetary wellbeing (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00310-3\">\u003Cu>Kallis et al. 2025\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>The following subsections address five misconceptions about degrowth and analyse their implications for circular economy thinking.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>\u003C/p>\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Myth one: Degrowth is not the same as recession\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Degrowth is not about causing an economic recession. Rather, it seeks to create a socioecological system that can flourish without continual economic growth. This means shifting the purpose of the economy away from private profits and capital accumulation and towards a system that fosters social well-being and environmental sustainability. Judging societal progress by GDP growth alone is like judging a city's livability by how big it is: it reveals little about the health, environmental, cultural, social, and economic services the city provides to its citizens and how sustainably it delivers them. While there is a minimum size required for an economy to meet the core social and economic needs of its citizens, research finds no correlation between continued economic growth and improvements in actual human wellbeing once those needs are met (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.103056\">\u003Cu>Komatsu et al., 2022\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Myth two: Degrowth is not about preventing development in the Global South\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\u003Cp>A common misconception is that degrowth seeks to prevent low-income countries from growing their economies. In fact, it argues the very opposite. By reshaping our global economic system away from the profit and capital accumulation of the Global North, degrowth seeks to free up resources, labour, and productive capacity so that countries in the Global South can meet their own development needs. Rather than producing cheap labour and resources for overconsumption elsewhere, these economies would be better able to meet local social and economic priorities (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.jasonhickel.org/less-is-more\">\u003Cu>Hickel, 2021\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>The term ‘degrowth’ should therefore not be understood as an objective of shrinking the global economy for its own sake. Instead, it serves as a deliberate provocation, encouraging us to question a socio-economic system centred on endless material production and to rethink what economies are ultimately for. The term was intentionally adopted because it is more resistant to co-option than concepts such as ‘sustainable development’, ‘sustainability’, ‘ecology’, and, more recently, ‘circular economy’. \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Myth three: Degrowth is about social justice as much as environmental sustainability\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\u003Cp>A common misconception is that degrowth focuses solely on reducing environmental impacts, regardless of the consequences for poverty reduction and human well-being. In reality, social justice is central to degrowth research. Its core concern is how societies can meet everyone’s needs while remaining within planetary boundaries. From this perspective, reducing poverty is not primarily a question of increasing GDP (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.plutobooks.com/product/the-poverty-of-growth/\">\u003Cu>De Schutter, 2024\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). Research suggests that investments in decent incomes, social safety nets, and collective bargaining rights, as well as free, quality public services like education, housing, public transport, and health care, are often more effective at improving wellbeing than relying on economic growth alone (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.jasonhickel.org/less-is-more\">\u003Cu>Hickel, 2021\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Myth four: Degrowth is not only a critique, it also proposes practical alternatives\u003C/strong>\u003Cem>  \u003C/em>\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Degrowth research is often characterised as purely critical of existing economic systems. However, it also explores a wide range of tangible solutions and feasible alternatives that bring forth real benefits for people and the planet. Much of this work draws on scenario modelling to compare policy options and provide scientifically viable pathways to sustainable futures (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00310-3\">\u003Cu>Kallis et al. 2025\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). These studies suggest that combining strong ecological regulations with redistributive social policies, such as wealth taxes, reduced working hours, and job guarantees, can allow humanity to thrive within planetary boundaries (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0484-y\">\u003Cu>D’Alessandro et al. 2020\u003C/u>\u003C/a>).  For example, recent modelling for France found that a combination of policies to reduce unnecessary consumption with wealth taxation and job guarantee programmes could substantially reduce GHG emissions and raw material footprint while also reducing unemployment and inequality (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1365100526100972\">\u003Cu>Boutiab & Distefano, 2026\u003C/u>\u003C/a>).\u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Myth five: Degrowth promotes democratic debate about alternative futures\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Another misconception is that degrowth seeks to prescribe a single way of organising society or an ‘ideal’ ecological lifestyle. In practice, degrowth research is less concerned with imposing a particular model than with challenging the assumption that continual GDP growth is the only viable path to prosperity. Instead of limiting sustainability discussions to solutions that are compatible with continued economic growth, degrowth looks at the science and co-develops diverse pathways that can address the challenges of the 21st Century. This broadens the space for innovation, allowing for a much wider and more diverse set of potential initiatives, policies, and approaches to address our ongoing socio-ecological crisis. \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Importantly, degrowth is also not bound to a single implementation model, nor does it require using the term ‘degrowth’ itself. Its principles can be reflected in a variety of approaches including convivial, sufficiency, or wellbeing economy approaches, as well as indigenous-inspired frameworks such as \u003Cem>Buen Vivir\u003C/em> in the Andes, \u003Cem>Ubuntu\u003C/em> in South Africa and Buddhist economics in Bhutan (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Pluriverse-full-printable-version-July-2019.pdf\">\u003Cu>Kothari et al. 2019\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). By embracing this plurality of alternatives, degrowth research aims to shift our collective imaginaries beyond the idea that ‘there are no alternatives’., Instead, it recognises the diverse practices and systems already emerging that demonstrate more sustainable ways of organising our economies and societies.\u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Degrowth research also places strong emphasis on democratic governance. Rather than advocating top-down solutions, it argues that transitions should be designed through inclusive and participatory decision-making. This includes innovations such as citizen assemblies and participatory budgeting, which bring together randomly selected ‘mini-publics’ of 100-200 participants designed to reflect a broader cross-section of society. Research suggests that these deliberative more constructive, informed, and inclusive discussions on complex social challenges, while encouraging policy approaches that consider collective interests alongside the priorities of specific stakeholder groups (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694\">\u003Cu>Dryzek et al. 2019\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). Although such practices have historical precedents, including the use of sortition in Ancient Athens for selecting governing committees and juries, they have gained renewed attention in recent years. Their growing adoption reflects interest in participatory approaches capable of generating context-specific and socially responsive policy proposals, with examples implemented at local, national, and international levels in countries like France, Belgium, the UK, Ireland, and Canada (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/145771/\">\u003Cu>Cherry et al. 2021\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>In the economic sphere, degrowth research explores alternative organisational models that expand participation and shared decision-making in the workplace, including non-profit worker- and community-owned cooperatives as complements or alternatives to conventional shareholder-owned corporations (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Imagining-Europe-Beyond-Growth-May-2023.pdf#page=28\">\u003Cu>Hinton, 2023\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). Existing research indicates that democratically governed non-profit cooperatives can support more sustainable and socially inclusive forms of economic organisation compared with many for-profit models (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138050\">\u003Cu>Villalba-Eguiluz et al. 2023\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). From this perspective, an economy dominated by these types of organisations could contribute to systems that place increased emphasis on social and environmental wellbeing, rather than relying primarily on continuous expansion and profit accumulation as measures of success (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s44168-022-00010-9\">\u003Cu>Cunico et al. 2022\u003C/u>\u003C/a>).   \u003C/p>\u003Ch2>\u003Cstrong>What does this mean for circular economy practitioners and researchers? \u003C/strong>\u003C/h2>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr />The insights from degrowth research have deep implications for circular economy practitioners. Together, they point towards three core lessons that can strengthen the ability of circular economy initiatives to address the increasingly complex socio-ecological challenges of the 21st century.\u003C/p>\u003Ch3>Lesson one: Prioritise circular strategies beyond recycling\u003C/h3>\u003Cp>First, degrowth research highlights the importance of prioritising the highest-value strategies within the circular economy ‘value retention hierarchy’, including refusing, reducing, reusing, and repairing. While recycling and incineration play a crucial role in the transition, the scale of today’s material consumption and waste generation means that these approaches alone are unlikely to deliver the resource reductions required to operate within planetary boundaries.\u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Recycling also faces inherent limitations. Resources typically lose quality and properties over successive recovery cycles, and recycling processes themselves require significant energy and infrastructure. As a result, secondary materials cannot entirely replace virgin materials, nor can waste be fully eliminated from economic systems. \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>An exclusive focus on recycling may also divert attention away from broader questions concerning what to produce and for whom. It can unintentionally reinforce the perception that improved waste management alone is sufficient to address environmental challenges, despite continued growth in material throughput. Finally, recycling systems depend on a continuous supply of large volumes of waste, creating what \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1670048\">\u003Cu>Savini (2019)\u003C/u>\u003C/a> describes as 'an economy that runs on waste’. \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Fortunately, many circular strategies higher up the value retention hierarchy already demonstrate positive results. Reuse networks, repair cafés, durable design, community composting, and urban agriculture all contribute to reducing resource demand while delivering broader environmental and social benefits (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138050\">\u003Cu>Villalba-Eguiluz et al. 2023\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). For example, reusing steel saves 0.36 kilograms CO2 per kilogram compared with recycling, and 1.78 kilograms CO2 per kilogram compared with producing virgin steel (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab0fe3\">\u003Cu>Hertwich et al. 2019\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). Extending the lifetime of electric kettles through repair can reduce their environmental impact by up to 35% (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.09.020\">\u003Cu>Sández et al., 2024\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). Similarly, urban agriculture and community composting not only contribute to food sovereignty and reducing waste, but also provide employment opportunities, foster biodiversity, build social networks, and promote physical and mental well-being (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1624426\">\u003Cu>Senthamizh & Anbarasan, 2025\u003C/u>\u003C/a>).\u003C/p>\u003Ch3>Lesson two: Integrate social considerations from the outset\u003C/h3>\u003Cp>Second, circular economy initiatives are strengthened when social considerations are integrated from the outset of projects and proposals rather than treated as complementary objectives. Reducing ecological footprint through circularity also requires asking broader social and political questions, like: \u003C/p>\u003Cul>\u003Cli>\u003Cp>Who has access to resources and products and who does not?\u003C/p>\u003C/li>\u003Cli>\u003Cp>Who makes decisions on what to produce and how to produce it?\u003C/p>\u003C/li>\u003Cli>\u003Cp>Who owns and benefits from ‘green’ and ‘circular’ technologies?\u003C/p>\u003C/li>\u003Cli>\u003Cp>How are the costs and benefits of the transition distributed? \u003C/p>\u003C/li>\u003Cli>\u003Cp>How are decent working conditions guaranteed in sectors such as recycling and remanufacturing? \u003C/p>\u003C/li>\u003Cli>\u003Cp>How can limited resources be allocated to meet essential social needs while minimising environmental impacts? \u003C/p>\u003C/li>\u003C/ul>\u003Cp>These questions are at the heart of degrowth literature but have historically received less attention within many circular economy discussions, where solutions are often implemented without considering broader social outcomes. Where social indicators are included, they often focus on measurable outcomes such as the number of circular jobs created. Degrowth research suggests that a more comprehensive assessment should also consider the quality of work, democratic participation, ownership structures, and the broader social and political repercussions. \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Research shows that circular economy solutions that explicitly incorporate social justice considerations are not only more likely to bring about positive social outcomes but also more likely to be ecologically sustainable and resilient (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12523Digital%20Object%20Identifier%20(DOI)\">\u003Cu>Morrow & Davies, 2022\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). One example is the SWaCH cooperative in Pune, India, where informal waste pickers organised into a democratically governed cooperative that now provides waste management and recycling services to 70% of the city while improving the livelihoods of 3,000 waste pickers (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168925\">\u003Cu>Buch et al., 2021\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). \u003C/p>\u003Ch3>Lesson three: Think beyond linear growth-dependent systems\u003C/h3>\u003Cp>Third, degrowth research encourages a systems perspective on circularity. We operate within economic systems that rely on continued growth and financial returns to guide investment and decision-making. Degrowth research shows how these structural incentives can create barriers to achieving the social and ecological objectives of our time. \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>From this perspective, achieving a socially just and sustainable circularity transition requires institutional change. This entails fostering public and commons-based provisioning of essential goods and services such as healthcare, education, public transportation, housing, renewable energy, and public job guarantees. Research suggests that these services can meet social needs in much more ecologically efficient ways than privatised systems (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00310-3\">\u003Cu>Kallis et al. 2025\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). Recent modelling indicates that expanding public and commons-based provisioning could enable 8.5 billion people to achieve decent living standards while requiring just 30% of current global material and energy use (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2024.100612\">\u003Cu>Hickel & Sullivan, 2024\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). Transport provides a clear illustration of this principle. Public transport systems require far fewer resources per passenger than mobility systems centered on private motorised vehicles. Consequently, cities that prioritise public transport have 20 times lower transport energy use per capita than cities dominated by private vehicles (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102074-6.00024-3\">\u003Cu>Kenworthy, 2018\u003C/u>\u003C/a>). \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>A systems perspective also highlights that a circular transition will only be socially and politically durable if its costs and benefits are fairly distributed. The investments needed to bring our societies back in harmony with planet Earth cannot disproportionately fall on those already facing economic hardship. On the contrary, if people throughout the world are to support such a transition, then they must be the main beneficiaries through healthier environments, accessible public services, quality employment, and stronger social protection. A range of policy instruments, including progressive wealth taxation and redistributive measures, have been proposed to finance these investments while reducing inequality and excessive resource consumption among the wealthiest segments of society.\u003Cbr /> \u003C/p>\u003Cp>Ultimately, degrowth research suggests that achieving circularity requires looking beyond technical solutions alone.  Alongside reuse, repair, and recycling, it calls for a broader mix of social and ecological policies such as job guarantees, wealth taxes, and universal provisioning of green public services like renewable energy, education, healthcare, transportation, and housing. Such holistic thinking can strengthen the environmental impact, social legitimacy, and long-term viability of the circular transition.\u003C/p>\u003Ch2>Conclusions\u003C/h2>\u003Cp>The insights from degrowth research offer an important lens for understanding our planetary predicament. They draw attention to the root causes of today’s socio-ecological crises while pointing to the many alternatives already emerging to address them. From a degrowth perspective, our growth-oriented economic system remains highly unequal, unsustainable, and inefficient at meeting humanity's needs within Earth’s biophysical boundaries. Yet it also reveals myriad opportunities, initiatives, and pathways for humanity to thrive within ecological limits, and that is where the circular economy can play a crucial role. \u003Cbr />\u003C/p>\u003Cp>The scale of the challenge ahead is considerable, but so too is the opportunity.  If we continue on our current path, we will face more frequent climate disasters and resource shortages, along with the accompanying social, political, and economic turmoil. Meeting these challenges will require looking beyond incremental improvements towards more systemic change. By combining circular economy strategies with broader social and institutional innovations, we can build economies that operate within planetary boundaries while enabling people and nature to flourish. In this sense, the task ahead is not simply to make our economies more circular, but to rethink what they are designed to achieve.\u003C/p>","\u003Cp>This article is authored by Martin Calisto Friant, Sustainability Scholar and Practitioner and Senior Researcher at Circle Economy. It summarises the latest research on degrowth and provides insights for circular economy practitioners.\u003C/p>",[54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83],"https://doi.org/10.48485/PIK.2025.017","https://pip.worldbank.org/poverty-calculator","https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09385-1","https://wir2026.wid.world/","https://wir2022.wid.world/","https://doi.org/10.21201/2023.000001","https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369144092_Earth_for_All","https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964","https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2025.1527052","https://kh-assets.prod.circularity-gap.world/content-image/exoMd2eweQQlp3hI.jpg","https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00310-3","https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.103056","https://www.jasonhickel.org/less-is-more","https://www.plutobooks.com/product/the-poverty-of-growth/","https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0484-y","https://doi.org/10.1017/S1365100526100972","https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Pluriverse-full-printable-version-July-2019.pdf","https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694","https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/145771/","https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Imagining-Europe-Beyond-Growth-May-2023.pdf#page=28","https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138050","https://doi.org/10.1007/s44168-022-00010-9","https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1670048","https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab0fe3","https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.09.020","https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1624426","https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12523Digital%20Object%20Identifier%20(DOI)","https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168925","https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2024.100612","https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102074-6.00024-3",[],"published","2026-08-04T10:08:59.959Z","2026-08-04T10:10:34.144Z",false,{"data":90,"meta":174},{"id":91,"documentId":92,"createdAt":93,"updatedAt":94,"publishedAt":95,"nav_secondary":96,"nav_primary":97},76,"cq0rcn2xoi5no1yfyvbgyln1","2025-06-22T14:25:01.818Z","2026-07-02T16:14:49.843Z","2026-07-02T16:14:50.119Z",[],[98,103,131,136,141,169],{"id":99,"label":100,"url":101,"disable_label_url":6,"children_links":102},711,"About","/about",[],{"id":104,"label":105,"url":106,"disable_label_url":6,"children_links":107},715,"Focus areas","programmes",[108,111,115,119,123,127],{"id":109,"label":105,"url":110},1689,"/programmes",{"id":112,"label":113,"url":114},1690,"Cities & regions","/programmes/cities",{"id":116,"label":117,"url":118},1691,"Finance & economics","/programmes/finance",{"id":120,"label":121,"url":122},1692,"Textiles & fashion","/programmes/textiles",{"id":124,"label":125,"url":126},1693,"Jobs & employment","/programmes/jobs",{"id":128,"label":129,"url":130},1694,"Global value chains","/programmes/value-chains",{"id":132,"label":133,"url":134,"disable_label_url":6,"children_links":135},712,"Services","/services",[],{"id":137,"label":138,"url":139,"disable_label_url":6,"children_links":140},713,"Impact","/impact",[],{"id":142,"label":143,"url":144,"disable_label_url":6,"children_links":145},716,"CGR","/cgr",[146,149,153,157,161,165],{"id":147,"label":148,"url":144},1695,"About CGR",{"id":150,"label":151,"url":152},1696,"CGR Global","/cgr/cgr-global",{"id":154,"label":155,"url":156},1697,"CGR Nations","/cgr/cgr-national",{"id":158,"label":159,"url":160},1698,"CGR Regions & cities","/cgr/cgr-regions-cities",{"id":162,"label":163,"url":164},1699,"CGR Industries","/cgr/cgr-industries",{"id":166,"label":167,"url":168},1700,"CGR Methodology","/cgr/cgr-methodology",{"id":170,"label":171,"url":172,"disable_label_url":6,"children_links":173},714,"Resources","/knowledge-hub/search",[],{},[176,183],{"id":177,"title":178,"type":179,"image":180,"isCE":181,"edit":88,"date":182},"XovR","Circle City Scan Bogotá","report","https://kh-assets.prod.circularity-gap.world/main-image/6P0WdItk-3bK7b9R.jpg",true,"2026-07-28T08:08:11.312Z",{"id":184,"title":185,"type":5,"image":186,"isCE":181,"edit":88,"date":187},"xNz0","How Doughnut Economics can transform sectors","https://kh-assets.prod.circularity-gap.world/main-image/IpgrYvPb3bpAQsiq.jpg","2026-07-28T12:03:21.536Z",{"likeCount":48,"isLiked":88}]