Introduction

Academic research on the circular economy (CE) is increasing rapidly (see Fig. 1). But, the literature is disorganized, lacking a basic level of theoretical foundation. This has been an obstacle to developing an interdisciplinary, consensual research agenda, with a minimal terminological consensus, and where challenges and research gaps are identified [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. As emphasized by Merli et al. [6] scholarly research about the CE requires a structured development to consolidate its definition, boundaries, principles, and associated practices.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Source: based on the information provided by Google Scholar (GS), Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases. Note: works with the term CE in their title published by year (search carried out in August 2022)

Scientific production related to the CE.

Full size image

The paradigm of the CE has emerged from the practitioner and policy-maker fields as a deliberate alternative to the linear economy. The CE, as a macro framework or paradigm, aims to tackle the exploitation of resources that accompanies the linear economy, and decouple economic growth from reliance on primary resources [7]. The CE concept proposes a regenerative and restorative system as an alternative to the linear economy. It is generally viewed in the literature as a promising idea and ideal [5]. Although the principles of the paradigm seem simple and even intuitive, academia is divided on the efficacy and the raison d'être of the CE paradigm [3, 7].

As a concept under construction, the notion of the CE stimulates strong debate and criticism, and many limitations, contradictions, obstacles, and challenges are highlighted in the literature (e.g., [3, 8,9,10,11]). Not surprisingly, these criticisms and limitations are neither structured nor focused. As underlined by Friant et al. [5] there is a lack of systemic and holistic understanding of the complex and controversial relationships between the CE, energy, resources, biodiversity, entropy, and economic growth.

Standard-Setting in the Field of CE: antecedents of the Family of ISO 59000 Standards

With the expressed aim of reducing the uncertainty and lack of precision about the CE paradigm and associated concepts, several standards have been proposed in recent years regarding the CE. These standards have been proposed both by the entrepreneurs in the field — such as the standard with CE metrics (e.g., Circulytics developed by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Circular Transition Indicators developed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development) — and by private standard-setting bodies—such as ISO (the International Organization for Standardization). Among the latter the following two standards might be mentioned:

  • BS 8001:2017. This standard sets out a general framework for the application of circular economy principles in organizations. BS 8001:2017 tries to reconcile the far-reaching ambitions of the CE with established business routines. The standard includes a comprehensive list of CE terms, definitions and general principles, a flexible management framework to implement CE strategies, and a detailed description of environmental, economic, and legal issues related to the CE. Yet the guidance for monitoring the CE strategy implementation remains vague [12]. BS 8001 is not intended to be prescriptive or certifiable.

  • XP X30-901:2018. The XP X30-901 Circular economy — Circular economy project management system — requirements and guidelines. Published by AFNOR, the French Standardization Association, this standard aims to set a holistic view of the CE and provides a general approach for the implementation of CE projects. This is a third-party certifiable standard.

In recent decades ISO has issued standards that could be included under the CE umbrella (e.g., ISO 14001, ISO 50001, ISO 14006, ISO 14040). Some of them are meta-standards, voluntary management standards for self-regulation designed to formalize, systematize and legitimize a very diverse set of management activities or tasks (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2015). There are also other sectoral standards for the CE. This is the case, for example, of the ETSI TR 103476:2018 standard on CE for the field of Information and Communication Technologies set by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), with a definition of approaches, concepts and metrics.

But among all the standards that have been promulgated or are in the pipeline, the ISO proposal under development stands out. The scheme of ISO 59000 standards under development aims to set a common language and conceptual framework to narrow the set of terms, measures, and indicators, covered by the umbrella-concept of the CE. The final version of the standards is expected to be published in 2024, five years after the launching of the technical committee by AFNOR. According to publicly available information, the ISO 59000 family of standards is expected to be composed of seven standards [13]:

  • ISO 59004: Key terminology, framework and principles of the CE.

  • ISO 59010: Guidance on business models and value networks related to CE.

  • ISO 59020: Measurement and assessment of circularity.

  • ISO 59040: Product Circularity Data Sheet intended for certification purposes.

  • ISO 59014: Secondary materials – Principles, sustainability and traceability requirements.

  • ISO 59031: Performance based approaches.

  • ISO 59032: Review of business model implementation.

The setting of CE-related standards by standard-setting bodies should be considered part of a general trend towards an increasing standardization. This phenomenon represents a rising form of hybrid coordination and governance for transnational private regulation, a new alternative to traditional public regulation [14,15,16]. The production of standards has profound social and political implications, but these consequences are overlooked in most specialized or "technical" approaches. As Timmermans and Epstein [17] emphasize, standards and standard-setting are not politically neutral and as pointed out in the scholarly literature standardization raises questions about the role of science and expertise in regulation.

A Call for Precision Regarding the ISO 59000 Standards

As far as the CE is concerned, doubts and limitations on standards arise from the very definition of the concept and the most elementary theoretical frameworks associated with it. Teasing out the doubts and limitations should be addressed cautiously in the standardization process undertaken by ISO, as there is a significant lack of consensus in the scientific community on elementary aspects of the CE paradigm [2, 18, 19].

While part of the community seems to assume a number of founding principles and focuses the lack of agreement on the internal terms of the paradigm, other voices go much further and completely refute the paradigm itself. These latter academics (e.g., [11, 20,21,22,23,24]) point out that the CE emerges as a theoretically, practically, and ideologically questionable notion. In short, the proper scientific and research content of the CE paradigm is questioned.

A recurrent critique addressed to the CE literature is that it ignores much established knowledge from a number of scientific fields, such as ecological economics and biodiversity management. One of the main criticisms focuses on the fact that the biophysical limits of circularity are not considered in the CE paradigm, leading to exaggeration of the overall economic potential of the CE paradigm [3, 11, 20, 25]. This criticism uses the concept of entropy to explain the limitations of circulation and to question the growth imperative. Closed material loops are practically and theoretically impossible, as underlined by Korhonen et al., [3] ‘Because of entropy, like all material and energy using processes, circular economy promoted recycling, reuse, remanufacturing and refurbishment processes too will ultimately lead to unsustainable levels of resource depletion, pollution and waste generation if the growth of the physical scale of the total economic system is not checked.’ [3], p. 40). Another way to frame these limitations underlined in the literature (e.g. [10] is the trend to use high volumes of materials for energy generation (which cannot be reused) and the large proportion of materials accumulated in stocks in use (buildings, durable goods and infrastructure) globally growing at high rates that will not be reused within a reasonable time horizon (i.e. compatible with the need for action in time to address the climate emergency we are facing).

Beyond this fundamental questioning of the CE paradigm, which emphasizes the impossibility of closing the loop due to the entropy argument, many other limitations of a more operational level are mentioned in the academic literature. Among others, limitations to the circularity due to safety issues might be mentioned. For example in the food industry the EU regulations on recycling food waste set in response to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy — mad cow disease — have a detrimental impact on circularity in food production in the EU [26]. Administrative and regulatory constraints are also frequently mentioned in the literature as a limitation for the CE (e.g., [27, 28]).

Yet, the introductory section of the draft ISO 59004 does not include any mention of these limitations of the CE. Indeed, the proposed approach and the definitions themselves are elusive and offer a rather narrow approximation to the CE paradigm. In the academic literature one of the most cited definitions is taken from Kirchherr et al. [2], who analyzed 114 definitions from the literature. These authors define the concept of the CE using a combination of reduce, reuse, and recycle activities. More specifically, they state that, “A CE describes an economic system that is based on business models which replace the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes, (…) with the aim to accomplish sustainable development, which implies creating environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity, to the benefit of current and future generations” [2], pp. 224–225).

In contrast with this comprehensive definition, the current version of the draft ISO 59004 standard defines the CE as, ‘[An] economic system that uses a systemic approach to maintain a circular flow of resources, by recovering, retaining or adding to their value, while contributing to sustainable development’ [29]. As can be seen, this definition is rather vague with respect to a number of the critical aspects discussed in the literature, such as reducing the use of materials in production, distribution, and consumption processes.

Conclusion

Standards that set out to operationalize the CE should include reflection on the alleged limitations of the paradigm and the proposed approach, and set out all aspects of the model for the various stakeholders and the public. At the very least, this would reduce some of the biases or harmful effects on which there is a developing consensus, for example, the rebound effect associated with the CE [30].

CE has become a buzzword that is used to describe anything and everything [31]. Therefore, ISO and other standard-setting bodies, should work on more consistent and balanced (i.e., nuanced) definitions of the terms involved. According to standard-setting bodies, standards should be built on a relevant foundation of consensus, transparency, openness, impartiality, effectiveness, relevance, and coherence. Furthermore, the Code of Ethics and Conduct of ISO commits the organization to work in such a way that it, ‘refrains from disseminating false or misleading information or from withholding information necessary to a full, fair and complete consideration of the issues at stake.’ [32], p. 2).

ISO 59000 standards are set, according to the proper ISO, ‘to harmonize the understanding of the circular economy and to support its implementation and measurement.’ [29]. Considering the scientific debate on the topic, rigorous and legitimate standards should include the limitations and shortcomings of the CE paradigm if this aim is to be achieved.