How the circular economy can revive the Sustainable Development Goals

Priorities for immediate global action, and a policy blueprint for the transition to 2050

Research paper Published 19 September 2024 ISBN: 978 1 78413 622 2 DOI: 10.55317/9781784136222

Dr Patrick Schröder

Senior Research Fellow, Environment and Society Centre

Dr Jack Barrie

Senior Research Fellow, Environment and Society Centre

With progress on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) badly off track, international policymakers are scrambling for solutions that can both revitalize the current SDG agenda and drive more effective action on humanity’s big challenges in the future. The ‘circular economy’ offers clear potential in this area. This wide-ranging concept, which involves making economies less wasteful and less resource-intensive while contributing to human development and well-being, could hold the key to accelerating SDG delivery. A more formal role within the SDGs and any emerging post-2030 successor regime would also provide a catalyst for expansion of the circular economy itself.

This paper explores how the circular economy could support each of the 17 SDGs, and argues for the concept to be put at the heart of emerging plans to drive sustainable development towards 2050. Doing so could help to foster resilient economies, reduce environmental impacts and ensure equitable resource distribution.

The paper identifies five priorities for action: embedding principles of justice and inclusivity into the circular transition; increasing international policy coordination; reforming the financial architecture to ensure the circular economy gets the investment it needs; rewiring the global system of trade to make it easier to trade circular products and services; and developing common standards and metrics.

03 Five priorities for using the circular economy to reinvigorate the SDGs

Work on the SDGs is in trouble. Only 17 per cent of SDG targets are on course to be achieved by 2030. The circular economy could provide the solution, supporting both SDG delivery and sustainable development more broadly.

The previous chapter outlined how the cross-cutting nature of the circular economy can help it contribute to every single Sustainable Development Goal (SDG). Recognizing that work on the SDGs is off-track and that most of the 169 SDG targets will not be achieved by 2030,69 we argue that now, more than ever, is the moment to ramp up international efforts on the circular economy.

The lack of progress on the SDGs is indicative of the fact that the world faces not only a sustainability crisis, but a crisis of multilateralism. International solidarity is essential to address challenges that are by nature global in scale, yet the countries with the largest resources and capacity are often the least committed to UN-based multilateralism. The US is a case in point, ranking last in terms of engagement with the UN system in a 2024 index of measures that include UN treaty ratification, voting record at the UN General Assembly and financial contributions to the UN.70 As with meeting the objectives of the SDGs, a successful circular economy transition will rely on strengthening multilateralism and ensuring renewed commitment to international cooperation and partnerships.

This chapter explores five areas for international collaboration that would help create a cohesive and effective global framework for a circular economy transition that supports the SDGs. The five areas, which can also be considered guiding principles for policymaking, are as follows: ensuring a just and inclusive transition; coordinating national policies and strategies; reforming the international financial architecture; rewiring global trade; and developing common standards and metrics. For each area, we propose a set of actions for various stakeholders involved in the multilateral system. As with the overall SDG framework, the five principles are interconnected and mutually supportive – progress in one area will advance progress in others, while neglecting one area will hold back overall progress.

The selection of the priority areas for collaboration was informed by a series of stakeholder roundtables hosted in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America between May and July 2024, as well as by feedback and inputs from over 30 organizations that participated in the Chatham House-led ‘Global Roadmapping Process for an Inclusive Circular Economy’.71 We strongly advise that action on these areas should begin immediately to ensure reforms become established before 2030, and to create the future institutional structures for a post-2030 transition to a revised or extended SDG framework. Although neither the future of the SDGs after 2030, nor the shape or substance of any successor regime, has been formally decided, there have been calls from prominent voices in the development debate for the SDGs to be extended, in revised form, to 2050.72

Figure 1. Proposed global areas for mutual coordination to accelerate progress on the SDGs

Priority 1: Ensuring a just and inclusive circular economy transition

According to the Club of Rome’s ‘Earth for All’ report,73 addressing inequality and ensuring inclusivity in sustainability transitions are key to achieving positive social tipping points, such as a critical mass of individuals and businesses shifting energy consumption patterns to renewable energy. We argue that a similar principle applies to the circular economy and its intersection with the SDGs. To achieve its transformative potential, the transition to a circular economy will need to be just and inclusive. It will need to anticipate and address social issues relating to human health, decent work and future employment – for example, ensuring that the introduction of circular technologies that disrupt incumbent industries takes into account potential job losses. And it will need to ensure that the ultimate focus of policy is on enhancing human well-being, not simply meeting technical sustainability metrics.

As discussed in Chapter 1, the case for a just and inclusive transition is more than a moral one. It is a pragmatic necessity for ensuring effective engagement with the UN system; such values, explicitly enshrined in the SDGs, are almost a prerequisite for serious consideration by multilateral policymakers. Justice and inclusivity are just as important for pre-empting political and popular resistance around the world to economic change, and for recruiting the widest possible international support for the circular economy by ensuring that its benefits are felt in developing countries as well as rich ones.

Building such trust will require, in the first instance, the rectification of existing environmental injustices around mismanaged waste and pollution, injustices that affect hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Necessary measures include halting and preventing the illegal dumping of waste to low- and middle-income countries; such practices have severe health impacts on workers, their families and communities.74 The Lancet Commission on pollution and health estimates that up to 9 million people die prematurely every year due to pollution and mismanaged waste.75

Ensuring a just transition to a circular economy also entails anticipating which countries, sectors, communities and workforces may be adversely affected by industrial transformation, and building policies, legislation and standards accordingly. It will mean involving relevant stakeholders in policy design and decision-making from an early stage. In particular, incorporating principles of justice into the planning and design of circular economy interventions will need to take three factors into account: whether distribution of resources is likely to be equitable; whether decision-making processes will be equitable and transparent; and whether stakeholders’ rights are likely to be upheld.76

These considerations apply both to technical dimensions of the circular transition (where industries adjust their operations and the composition of their labour forces to integrate circularity) and to its social dimensions (given the need to ensure social equity, social cohesion and acceptance of change among employers, workers and consumers). With the right planning, circular economy interventions can be effective at providing alternative livelihoods – for example, in repair and remanufacturing – for workers in regions or industries transitioning away from linear models of production. Equally, circular economy strategies such as mineral recovery and urban mining may be able to minimize the risks of ‘energy colonialism’, a persistent concern across many aspects of decarbonization.

At the global scale, for the circular economy to gain widespread acceptance, it cannot be perceived as embodying a Western-led, neocolonial approach to development. Local expertise and traditional practices – both in developing countries and elsewhere – will need to be acknowledged and respected, all the more so because the circular economy is already in some respects familiar in such settings. Indigenous and nomadic peoples and local communities have long-standing traditions, practices and epistemologies that embody principles of circularity, resilience and harmony with nature.77 By recognizing and valuing Indigenous and local knowledge, modern societies can gain real-life and evidence-based insights into sustainable resource management and community-based governance. Integrating Indigenous perspectives into circular economy strategies can thus enrich the global community’s understanding and practices, demonstrate practical approaches for balancing the relationship between humans and nature, and promote cultural diversity and social inclusion.

A successful transition to a circular economy also needs comprehensive participation. It cannot achieve the scale and breadth required without involving businesses and economic actors in all sectors and at every level – from multinationals all the way down to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) and informal workers. MSMEs and the informal sector already play an important role in the circular economy, including through small-holder regenerative farming, the sale of second-hand products, and waste collection and sorting. In many countries the informal sector is the starting point for reverse supply chains, filling gaps where governments do not function and acting as the largest supplier of second-hand goods. Of the estimated 19–24 million people globally who work in waste collection and recycling, 80 per cent are thought to belong to the informal sector.78

A successful transition to a circular economy needs comprehensive participation. It cannot achieve the scale and breadth required without involving businesses and economic actors in all sectors and at every level – from multinationals all the way down to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and informal workers.

But while MSMEs and informal workers are the backbone of national and local economies – and could contribute to, and benefit, from the circular economy in many ways – they are sometimes excluded from policy calculations and lack institutional support to make the transition. A lack of effective legislation, limited funding, insufficient opportunities for training and skills development, ineffective taxation policy and incoherent environmental regulations are all widely recognized as barriers to MSME adoption of new circular business models.

Special attention needs to be given to vulnerable populations, informal sector workers and women entrepreneurs, to ensure that circular economy practices contribute to social equity and new economic and employment opportunities in global and local value chains. A recent joint study by the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Circle Economy Foundation and the World Bank highlights the need to focus not only on the quantity but also the quality of jobs that the circular economy can create, in line with SDG 8 (‘Decent work and economic growth’).79 The issue of decent work is particularly relevant to informal and MSME workers, who face greater barriers when it comes to achieving decent and safe working conditions and accessing social security systems.

Priority 1 – Summary of recommendations for international organizations

Below we outline a series of actions which the policy communities setting frameworks for decent working conditions and protection of Indigenous people’s rights could take to help ensure just transition and inclusivity principles are embedded within global circular economy development efforts.

Establish global guidelines for ensuring social equity in the transition to a circular economy. Develop a UN-endorsed framework that includes principles of just transition, focusing on the equitable distribution of resources, fair and transparent decision-making, and recognition of rights.
Establish an international platform under the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) together with the Inter-Agency Support Group (IASG) on Indigenous Issues to document, share and integrate Indigenous and local knowledge into circular economy policies and practices. It will be important to understand better and document the benefits and potential negative impacts of the circular economy on Indigenous communities.
Launch a global campaign targeting varied stakeholders – including governments, businesses, communities and educational institutions – to advocate for and explain the benefits of inclusivity for a circular economy.
Work with the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Circle Economy Foundation and the World Bank to develop comprehensive guidelines and best practice for measuring decent work in the circular economy. Such guidance will need to address issues such as employment impacts of circular economy policy alongside job safety, fair wages and social protection.
Provide technical assistance and policy guidance to national governments to develop and implement inclusive circular economy policies that address social issues such as health, decent work and community well-being.

Priority 2: Coordinating national policies and strategies to deliver an inclusive circular economy

The circular economy holds enormous promise, but implementation and policy at present are fragmented. Given the essentially interconnected nature of the circular economy, and the importance of global scale and coherence if the sector is to achieve critical mass, there is an urgent need for coordination between governments on national policies and objectives. The aim should be to create an effective global policy ecosystem conducive to circular economy transitions.

To illustrate the proverbial ‘spaghetti bowl’ of policies currently in place or under development, at the time of writing more than 75 national circular economy roadmaps and strategies had been launched (71 since 2016). Taken together, these documents include commitments from governments to introduce just under 3,000 separate circular economy policies spanning 17 sectors and 135 policy categories over the coming decade. Additionally, Chatham House has identified a further 540 existing circular economy policies in 110 countries; 80 per cent of these policies have been launched since 2010. While this proliferation of activity demonstrates growing momentum within the global community, signalling a shared aspiration to transition towards a circular economy, it also makes management and coordination difficult.80

Findings from the Global Stocktake of National Circular Economy Roadmaps 202481 confirm the problem and show three major shortcomings. First, the majority of roadmaps fail to consider the potential unintended consequences for key trading partners (particularly those in the Global South), as well as the dependence of domestic circular policy goals on global value chain coordination and collaboration. Second, the majority of circular economy roadmaps fail to consider the principles of just transition and social equity (including worker and consumer rights) within their agendas. Third, most existing roadmaps and policies do not provide adequate public resources to fund circular initiatives, nor do they provide mechanisms for leveraging private sector finance.

Box 2. Cross-border impacts of domestic circular economy policy – the case of the EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR)

The EU’s new Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), which entered into force on 18 July 2024,82 will require a wide range of goods sold in the EU to be more circular – that means more durable, repairable, recyclable, less toxic, with verified green claims, and with traceable supply chains. The ESPR is a framework regulation intended to underpin the setting of product rules over time. Because these rules will apply to products made outside the EU as well as inside it, the ESPR is likely to present significant challenges for suppliers, particularly MSMEs in developing countries, as such suppliers may lack the capacity, finances, technology and intellectual property needed to meet market access standards.

Better collaboration is essential to turn these challenges into opportunities. For example, a country introducing its own ecodesign requirements could provide assistance in the form of technology transfer, training and financial support to help developing-country manufacturers meet its circularity standards. In recognition of these challenges, the EU has funded a number of initiatives to support the most affected non-EU value chain actors. These initiatives include the SWITCH to Circular Economy Value Chains programme, funded by the EU and led by the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO),83 and the European Circular Economy Research Center (CERC).84

But there is a need to go beyond traditional reactive donor support to better pre-empt the complex and multi-faceted cross-border impacts that ESPR requirements could create, and to integrate the most affected/marginalized communities into policymaking from the outset. Such communities include small-shop owners, street vendors, local government bodies, informal sector workers, local communities, and Indigenous peoples whose knowledge and practices can significantly contribute to circular strategies. This would not only aid compliance with the ESPR but would also support broader development goals, foster innovation and sustainability across industries, and create equitable benefits along supply chains.

Global policy coherence will play a pivotal role in charting the trajectory towards a circular economy. Circular economy policy frameworks, coordinated between countries, will be needed to accelerate efforts to address environmental challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution and desertification. A range of ‘policy packages’ to advance inclusive circularity could combine any of the following: ‘extended producer responsibility’ (EPR) schemes;85 product ecodesign standards (covering criteria such as durability, repairability, use of recycled content, and the removal of hazardous chemicals); product bans where circular alternatives exist; right-to-repair legislation; information campaigns and educational programmes; taxation of material consumption over labour; user charges for single-use items; public procurement guidelines; and new types of economic incentives and financial instruments.86 Furthermore, policy impact assessments could usefully be conducted both ex ante and ex post to demonstrate how circular economy interventions can support a broader set of socio-economic objectives and SDGs, and to ensure policies are designed to support a just transition.87

Box 3. The case for global policy coherence on the ‘right to repair’

‘Right-to-repair’ legislation aims to reduce waste, extend the lifespan of products and promote sustainability by granting consumers the ability to repair and maintain their products, and by ensuring access to the necessary tools, parts and information to do so. An example is the EU’s new right-to-repair directive,88 which mandates that manufacturers make spare parts and repair information available to consumers and professional repairers for at least 10 years after a product’s market launch. One of the targets of right-to-repair legislation is the market for consumer electronics, where frequent upgrades and rapid obsolescence can render products unrepairable and add to the volume of materials that need recycling or disposal.

However, the lack of cross-border harmonization in right-to-repair laws raises the critical question of how rights to repair transfer across borders. When second-hand goods are shipped to secondary markets, they will often need to be repaired, refurbished or remanufactured. Without the transfer of the right to repair, the ability of third parties to access the necessary repair-related intellectual property, specialist tools and spare parts in these secondary markets will remain limited or non-existent. In such cases, this often leads to items being discarded prematurely, which exacerbates waste and undermines sustainability efforts. A fragmented legislative environment for the right to repair also makes it more costly and logistically complex for businesses to navigate and comply with different requirements.

The development of consistent global standards is therefore essential to ensure that all parties, regardless of location, have equitable access to repair information and tools. Globally harmonized right-to-repair legislation would foster a more inclusive global circular economy. It would empower consumers worldwide, increase product longevity, and align with broader goals of reducing waste and promoting environmental sustainability.

Circular economy policies will be crucial to implementation of multilateral environmental agreements and intergovernmental commitments, including those made under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and the upcoming UN legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution by 2040. The UNEA-6 ministerial declaration of March 2024 calls on member states and UN observer states to develop resource efficiency strategies and circular economy strategies.89 However, implementation of circular economy policies is often hampered by a lack of finance, a lack of economic incentives, failure to provide clear targets, political short-termism and limited international coordination. At a national level, coordination on circular economy roadmaps or governance tends to sit primarily within the remit of environment ministries; this often prevents a systematic and whole-of-government approach.

Policy instruments and incentives are particularly needed to help MSMEs, so often the drivers of local economic development, to incorporate circular economy principles into their business models. Emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring that MSMEs and small suppliers are not excluded from value chains as a result of uncoordinated circular policies. Furthermore, circular economy approaches (reducing resource and product use, reusing products and materials, substituting products with sustainable alternatives, recycling) are key to the industrial transformation of many sectors.

Circular economy policies must also begin to address the many interlinked and interdependent factors that influence consumption patterns and behavioural changes, in order that populations can shift to sustainable lifestyles.90 As the UN Global Strategy on Sustainable Consumption and Production 2023–2030 highlights,91 coordination and collaborative efforts on consumption policies for effective demand-side management can bridge gaps in resource distribution, encourage knowledge exchange and establish a shared commitment to human well-being. Sustainable consumption is also a pivotal aspect of the circular economy in terms of fostering sustainable lifestyles, supporting well-being and aligning human aspirations with protection of the common global good. However, managing the trade-offs – real or perceived – between reducing consumption in global aggregate terms and supporting a just and inclusive transition (see Priority 1) will require international coordination to ensure equitable outcomes regarding the affordability of sustainable products, the phase-out of outdated products and the fulfilment of basic needs.92

Policy instruments and incentives are particularly needed to help MSMEs, so often the drivers of local economic development, to incorporate circular economy principles into their business models.

Priority 2 – Summary of recommendations for international policymakers

Below we outline a series of actions the global community could pursue to help ensure the wave of circular legislation due to be introduced around the world over the next decade is conducted in a coordinated way that works to the betterment of all, rather than becoming increasingly fragmented, unequal and inefficient.

Establish a cross-sectoral circular economy alliance and collaborative framework among UN development agencies. Participants would need to include government ministries whose remits cover economic planning and development, multilateral development banks (MDBs), the private sector, and civil society organizations engaged in global development and SDG implementation. Rather than starting from scratch, one option for establishing such an alliance could be to expand the membership, mandate and funding of the Global Alliance on Circular Economy and Resource Efficiency (GACERE) – which currently consists of 16 countries plus the EU – to turn it into a truly global platform.
As an alternative to expanding GACERE, consider forming an international resource agency, as recommended by the International Resource Panel in the Global Resources Outlook 2024.93 Such a body would be akin in some respects to the International Energy Agency (IEA) but with a mandate for the circular economy rather than energy. The new agency’s mission would be to facilitate knowledge sharing, policy coordination, capacity-building and resource mobilization for joint policy initiatives.
Enhance the roles of the G7 and G20 in driving circularity, and increase the ambition of their commitments. A starting point would be to build on the 2024 G7 communiqué that recognizes the need to support developing countries in their national transitions towards a circular economy.94 Work could involve expanding new opportunities in value chains arising from the transition, with G7 and G20 members coordinating alignment of key policy frameworks, especially for EPR schemes which many G20 members are in the process of developing.
Embed circular economy principles into the implementation plans of multilateral environmental agreements, including the CBD and the Paris Agreement on climate change. This could ensure more rapid adoption of circularity at the highest political level, and its integration into comprehensive national environmental strategies, including: NDCs on emissions reductions under the UNFCCC; national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) under the CBD’s new Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF); and national and regional circular economy strategies.
Ensure national implementation is guided by tailored and updated transition roadmaps. This will mean supporting countries in their development of national plans that both align with global targets and consider local contexts, available resources, and institutional contexts and challenges. Strategies to be considered should include demand-side measures facilitating shifts to sustainable lifestyles.

Priority 3: Reforming the international financial architecture to incentivize inclusive models of circularity

The transition to a global circular economy will cost money. As the World Bank has highlighted, far more investment is needed to scale up the circular economy and realize the economic opportunities it presents.95 Developing countries have significant gaps in financing for clean energy, waste management, circularity-enabling infrastructure and green industrial development. The transition to a circular economy will thus require substantial financial support for infrastructure development and technology adoption in low- and middle-income countries. To give just one example, Ghana’s national circular economy roadmap has an estimated required budget of US$2.4 billion,96 equivalent to 3 per cent of GDP.

At the same time, the challenge is qualitative as well as quantitative: financing for the circular economy will not take off without reform of policies that, at present, continue to be biased towards conventional ‘linear’ models of production and consumption.97 Among the most interesting opportunities in this area is the idea of enshrining circularity principles in the mandates of international public finance institutions, as this could enable a scaling-up of development and climate financing through multilateral development banks (MDBs).

Multiple recent financial and debt crises in developing countries have made the role of MDBs in closing the development financing gap more important than ever. In particular, as attracting private capital is becoming more difficult for low- and middle-income countries, MDBs will need to harness their proven ability to leverage private capital for financing the SDGs. Most fundamentally, MDBs will also need to increase their lending capacity substantially, for example by lowering their equity-to-loan thresholds and raising additional capital from shareholders or private investors. There have also been interesting calls for MDBs’ mandates and missions to be reformed to include the provision of global public goods.98

Some progress is being made on operationalizing global public goods financing. For example, in April 2024, 11 countries announced commitments for the World Bank’s Portfolio Guarantee Platform, a hybrid capital mechanism, and a new Liveable Planet Fund totalling $11 billion.99 Over the next 10 years these new mechanisms could provide up to $70 billion in additional finance to advance development objectives linked to the SDGs and global public goods. Reform efforts also gained momentum during India’s G20 presidency in 2023, when a group of independent experts appointed during the country’s tenure recommended a ‘triple agenda’ to harness the potential of MDBs. This agenda’s three elements were: (1) reforming MDB mandates to include explicitly the goals of eliminating extreme poverty, boosting shared prosperity and contributing to global public goods; (2) tripling sustainable lending by 2030; and (3) creating a flexible and innovative funding mechanism for recruiting investors willing to support elements of the MDB agenda.100 Packages of new financing and advisory support by MBDs for circular economy solutions and businesses could support both global public goods as well as meeting individual country development needs.

The circular economy’s potential to create jobs gives development finance an important role, even more so now in the context of falling foreign direct investment (FDI) into countries of the Global South. Developing economies have seen the biggest fall in FDI over the 2022–23 period. According to the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), FDI to developing countries fell by 9 per cent to $841 billion in 2023. In particular, there was a significant reduction in project finance deals – a key financing mechanism for infrastructure and other key sectors relevant to sustainable development, including renewable energy, water and sanitation.101 Moreover, the global geopolitical trend towards ‘reshoring’ of manufacturing could make it difficult for developing countries to access investments and upgrade their economies using traditional linear global value chains.102 At the same time, this reform challenge presents an opportunity, as it may force developing countries to consider alternative possibilities such as investment in circular economy solutions and innovations across a range of different sectors. Key areas of potential include: buildings and infrastructure;103 textiles, plastics and packaging; renewable energy; water and sanitation; and electronics, including e-waste and the automotive sector.104

As with any financial investment, market appetite for the circular economy will depend on how risks are assessed and adjusted for in the financial models and instruments concerned. The relative novelty of the circular economy makes this doubly important, as growth is likely to be contingent on appropriate de-risking of investments through the use of instruments such as blended finance and investment guarantees. This is particularly the case for developing countries, where risk premiums are already typically much higher than in advanced economies.105 Appropriately structured risk-sharing protocols and instruments could do much to address this gap, supporting public–private collaboration and financing, and offering a wider range of possibilities for scaling up circular economy investments. Potentially effective options could involve the use of domestic public funds, official development assistance or the philanthropic sector to leverage private sources of capital and de-risk early-stage investments, particularly into MSMEs and start-ups.106 Recent inflationary pressures have led to much tighter lending conditions for MSMEs in many countries, limiting the flow of finance and acting as a barrier to investment, with particularly detrimental impacts on the ability of women-led and minority-owned businesses to access funding.107 Financial institutions such as national development banks and commercial banks will therefore need to diversify their financing sources, and the range and sophistication of the circular economy-specific financial instruments at their disposal, to meet the evolving needs of MSMEs and entrepreneurs. This was a key recommendation put forward by the UN to accelerate the circular economy transition in Latin America and the Caribbean.108

As the multilateral development finance agenda shifts, circular economy principles will need to be at the centre of any new financial architecture.

As the multilateral development finance agenda shifts, circular economy principles will need to be at the centre of any new financial architecture. This is to ensure that development finance is directed to the right infrastructure projects, to resource-efficient industrial development, and to business models that create local value and benefit communities. Several reform proposals have been put forward, including the ongoing Financing for Development (FfD) process,109 the Bridgetown Initiative,110 and the Paris Pact for People and Planet championed by French president Emmanuel Macron.111 While the proposals are making good progress on discussions such as including climate vulnerability in debt sustainability assessments or finance facilities for forests to pay for ecosystem services,112 more work is required to reform the international financial architecture in view of escalating resource consumption, rising waste generation and the accelerating decline of environmental systems.

Leading MDBs have indicated their understanding of this challenge, as well as their intention to scale up their activities in the circular economy. An example can be found in the financing initiatives of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a funding mechanism that supports six multilateral environmental conventions. Co-founded by the World Bank, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the GEF has initiated various circular economy financing initiatives, including the Circular Economy Regional Initiative (CERI) targeting the Western Balkans and Turkey.113 The Circle Economy Foundation’s release of a high-level roadmap in 2022 set the milestones which international financial institutions including the MDBs see as critical to supporting financing efforts,114 while a ‘shared vision’ published in April 2024 outlines the unique role MDBs see for themselves in leveraging the circular economy as a development strategy.115

Box 4. Financing circular economy business models in Africa

The African Circular Economy Facility (ACEF) is a multi-donor trust fund that aims to finance the expansion of the circular economy in Africa. This initiative of the African Development Bank (AfDB) is funded by Scandinavian donors, and has become a key component of the AfDB’s 10-year strategy on green and inclusive development by offering grant financing for projects and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) within individual countries and across the African continent. The aim is to advance the circular economy transition through a ‘three-pronged approach’ which includes building institutional capacity to create enabling environments, providing private sector support for MSMEs through technical assistance and grants, and promoting the broader adoption of the circular economy. The facility works closely with the government-led African Circular Economy Alliance (ACEA), highlighting the importance of aligning financing and policy development.116 Through the financing facility, the AfDB seeks to support growth in strategic sectors and realize business opportunities in five priority sectors: food systems, packaging, the built environment, fashion and textiles, and electronics.117 Financing, especially targeted at MSMEs that make up the majority of businesses in these sectors, is a crucial enabler to achieve the transition to a circular economy.

Priority 3 – Summary of recommendations for international policymakers

Below we outline a series of recommended actions that the international financial community could pursue to help transform the global financial architecture in a way that incentivizes the shift to an inclusive circular economy.

Implement global and national investment strategies for the circular economy, aligned with SDG objectives. As part of ongoing MDB reform and new mandates to include global public goods, international financial institutions will need to develop and implement strategies for scaling up circular economy initiatives and business models globally and locally. One option would be for the existing MDBs to formalize their existing circular economy working group, and to seek alignment between institutions on circular economy definitions, assessment methodologies and investment priorities for the SDGs. The new objectives, milestones and alignment efforts would need to be anchored in a reformed MBD agenda.
Operationalize the MDBs’ ‘Just Transition High-Level Principles’,118 developed ahead of COP26 in 2021, through the MDB circular economy finance roadmap and 2024 ‘shared vision’ document.119 The Just Transition High-Level Principles and specific financial instruments could be integrated into the actions and milestones outlined in the roadmap.
Use the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), scheduled to be held in Seville, Spain in mid-2025,120 to accelerate reform and develop innovative proposals for financing circular economy business models and the SDGs. Priorities should include creating new mechanisms to leverage private sector investment through risk-sharing mechanisms such as blended finance and government-backed loans.
Develop a ‘Global Circular Economy Fund’, possibly modelled on the Green Climate Fund, with the mandate to finance and scale up circular solutions for resource efficiency and waste reduction across industries. The fund would mobilize public and private resources and accelerate the transition to a circular economy worldwide, especially supporting low- and middle-income countries. Such a fund could build on the lessons learnt from existing multilateral financing mechanisms for the circular economy, including GEF circular economy initiatives.121 It could catalyse financing for innovative projects, facilitate agreement on common financial metrics and standards, promote cross-sectoral collaboration and drive systemic change in industrial development.

Priority 4: Rewiring the global trade system to handle circular economy-enabling goods and services

Trade has historically played an important role both in contributing to, and inhibiting progress towards, the SDGs.122 On the one hand, it has been an engine for development and poverty reduction: boosting economic growth and helping to raise hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. On the other, the current trade system has tended to favour market liberalization as its primary goal, subordinating to that agenda wider goals such as sustainable development. Not only has this resulted in significant externalized environmental and social impacts123 – for example, labour exploitation, deforestation, overfishing, and carbon emissions driven by global supply chains – but it has also prevented targeted support for trade in key environmental and socially beneficial goods. This is evidenced from the stalled negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO) on an Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA).124

Frictionless trade in relevant goods and services is important for expansion of the circular economy in the context of the SDGs. No country will be able to achieve a circular economy on its own. Rather, all countries are dependent to varying degrees on international trade to secure affordable and reliable access to a wide range of materials, goods and services. The many different types of trade flows involved are collectively referred to here as ‘circular trade’ (see Box 5).

Box 5. What is ‘circular trade’?

We can define ‘circular trade’ as any trade flow that facilitates the uptake of circular economy activities.* This includes trade in the following:

Circularity-enabling goods (such as remanufacturing and recycling equipment);
Circularity-enabling services (circular economy design skills, leasing or rental services, and repair services);
Relevant intellectual property rights (for example, repair and remanufacturing instructions and guidelines);
Second-hand goods (in a condition sufficient for direct resale, repair, refurbishment, remanufacturing, or recycling in the secondary market); and
Secondary raw materials and non-hazardous waste, scrap and residues that can’t be domestically managed but can be recovered for use in primary production in secondary markets.

*Circular economy activities encompass any activity that results in the decoupling of economic activity from the consumption of finite resources. This includes ‘refusing’ [to buy non-sustainable products], ‘rethinking’ [consumption habits], ‘reducing’ [consumption and resource use], reusing, repairing, refurbishing, remanufacturing, repurposing, recycling, recovering and regenerating.

Source: Barrie, J., Schröder, P. and Schneider-Petsinger, M., with King, R. and Benton, T. G. (2022), The role of international trade in realizing an inclusive circular economy, Research Paper, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, https://doi.org/10.55317/9781784135393.

Although circular trade is a key to progress on the SDGs, a range of regulatory and technical challenges are inhibiting development.125 These include a lack of mutually recognized definitions, classifications, interoperable standards, regulations and conformity procedures concerning circular economic activities or goods. Furthermore, as an emerging area of activity, the circular economy has only been embedded to a limited degree in bilateral, regional and plurilateral trade and economic cooperation agreements to date. This has restricted the scope and potential for collaboration on transboundary issues such as preventing illegal waste, preventing trade in circular economy-inhibiting goods (such as single-use items, non-repairable products and components, or materials containing toxic chemicals that cannot be reused or recycled), improving supply-chain transparency and traceability, stimulating investment, establishing mutual recognition of rules and standards, removing technical barriers to trade, and supporting trade facilitation services.

The increasing complexity of regulatory compliance is another obstacle to circular trade. For example, in recent years there has been a tightening of the rules covering the transboundary shipment of waste, notably through the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure established in the ‘Basel Convention’ (formally, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, in force since 1992). These stricter regulations aim to deter waste dumping and promote responsible waste management. However, there is a pressing need to facilitate and support the operations of legitimate traders of second-hand goods, secondary raw materials and recoverable waste; these traders operate in good faith but are now facing increased costs and time burdens as a result of the need to comply with PIC requirements. Potential remedies that have been proposed include the establishment of ‘resource recovery lanes’ to facilitate customs clearance, and the use of ‘trusted circular trader’ programmes to pre-approve traders certified as circular economy-compliant (see Box 6); such measures could streamline customs processes and support circular trade while maintaining alignment with the Basel Convention.

Box 6. Boosting circular trade through ‘trusted circular trader’ schemes and ‘resource recovery lanes’

‘Trusted circular trader’ schemes and ‘resource recovery lanes’ could help to streamline circular trade by reducing, with safeguards, the procedural requirements and red tape governing the movement of circular goods and materials across borders. The idea would be to make it faster, easier and cheaper for approved or certified exporters and/or importers to comply with strict quality and procedural standards, provided such traders meet certain qualifying conditions (see below).

Trusted circular trader programmes: A trusted trader programme is a certification system offered by customs authorities or relevant governmental bodies to businesses engaged in international trade. These programmes aim to enhance trade efficiency and supply-chain security by providing benefits and privileges to traders who meet defined criteria and demonstrate high levels of compliance with customs and security standards. The Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) programme, managed by the World Customs Organization (WCO), is an example of such an initiative. A circular economy-focused version of this programme could offer incentives to traders involved in the exchange of recoverable waste, secondary raw materials, or used goods that are suitable for direct reuse, repair, refurbishment or remanufacturing.

Resource recovery lanes: A resource recovery lane is a concept similar to a customs ‘green lane’ at a port, designed to expedite customs processing for circular goods and materials. This would be particularly beneficial for companies that require consistent, timely and affordable access to secondary raw materials from international sources, either to enhance the sustainability of their products or to comply with regulations mandating recycled content. At present, companies often encounter significant delays, complex administrative barriers and high costs when attempting to secure secondary raw materials, due to stringent and often inconsistent international regulations governing waste trade. A resource recovery lane could address these issues by implementing more efficient health and safety checks, reducing the amount of required documentation, and prioritizing compliant shipments. An example of this concept in practice is the OECD’s ‘pre-consented facilities’ initiative, which simplifies procedures for recovery facilities dealing with hazardous wastes, although it is not specifically focused on higher-value circular activities such as recycling, repair, refurbishment or remanufacturing.

Source: Barrie, J. and Grooby, G. (2023), Going Circular: How the Harmonized System Codes Can/Not Support a Circular Economy and What Else Could Be Done, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, August 2023, https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/international/20579.pdf.

There is also the question of ensuring global circular trade is conducted according to the principles of justice and inclusivity mentioned earlier (see Priority 1). At present, global inequities in power relations, digital trade capabilities, trade infrastructure, access to circular finance, and industrial and innovation capabilities mean that countries in the Global North are typically better positioned than those in the Global South to reap the benefits of circular trade. If an explicit goal to reduce trade-related (or trade-exacerbated) inequities is not built into the global circular economy transition, then it is highly likely that these inequities will create or widen a ‘circularity trade divide’,126 in which the gains accrued from circular trade are unevenly distributed.

This divide is already evident to a certain extent. Around 45 per cent of trade, by value, in secondary goods and materials, waste and scrap occurs solely between high-income countries, compared with only about 1 per cent between low-income countries and middle- to high-income countries.127 Additionally, countries in the Global South are often the destination for internationally traded low-value or illegal waste. The lack of capacity in these countries to manage and treat such waste has led to greater environmental risks and social burdens. The circular trade divide, should it persist or widen, will act as a significant barrier to a globally inclusive transition to a circular economy, and impede progress on the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Looking forward, how countries respond to resource pressures in the context of climate change and other environmental challenges in the future will be critical to determining whether the circular economy takes off. A retreat into resource nationalism128 would weaken the global commons on which the circular economy depends, whereas international collaboration and renewed commitment to multilateralism could catalyse its growth.

An alternative – and ultimately far more effective – pathway for the circular transition would be one in which circular trade serves as an enabler of fair, inclusive and circular societies. Rather than the current fragmented and largely unilateral approach to transitioning to a circular economy, overcoming barriers to circular trade will require a coordinated and collaborative global response to ensure that all countries and territories, in particular developing economies, benefit equally from the transition (see also Priority 2).

For this to occur, there is a pressing need to reform the international trade system so that it facilitates and incentivizes transparent and sustainable circular trade flows across borders. Necessary changes include harmonizing and ensuring mutual recognition of relevant circular standards, removing tariff and non-tariff trade barriers for goods and services that enable the adoption of circular practices (reuse, repair, remanufacturing, recycling), strengthening barriers to illicit trade in waste, and embedding circularity within future trade agreements. By aligning global trade policies with circular economy objectives, an enabling environment can be created for cross-border collaboration, trade and innovation.

Priority 4 – Summary of recommendations for international policymakers

Below we recommend a series of actions that the global community could take to support reform of the global trade system in a way that facilitates circular trade.

Formalize the current informal working group on the circular economy that is hosted by the WTO’s Trade and Environmental Sustainability Structured Discussions (TESSD). The new formal group should seek to: (i) launch a dedicated awareness-raising initiative for WTO members to help to address the awareness gap in terms of the benefits of the circular economy, including by creating a space for collective discussions; (ii) conduct a comprehensive ‘stocktaking’ exercise among willing WTO members and industry of best practice, existing definitions, and classifications of products in relation to circularity for key sectors such as construction, plastics, electronics and textiles (this should include identifying opportunities for wider uptake of shared definitions and classifications for the key sectors); (iii) draft a shortlist of goods necessary for conducting activities that offer a substantial contribution to the circular economy but are currently subject to high tariffs; (iv) provide a forum for countries (especially developing countries) to raise and discuss their concerns and challenges related to circular economy trade-related measures; (v) establish a technical working group to identify practical solutions and support multi-country pilot projects and experiments on capturing and communicating circular economy-relevant information on goods at international borders; and (vi) facilitate information exchange and bridge communication gaps between existing trade-related programmes (such as the WTO-led ‘Aid-for-Trade Initiative’) and institutions involved in multilateral and intergovernmental developments on the circular economy (such as multilateral environmental agreements, UNEA resolutions, etc.).
Identify circularity as a core pillar in the pursuit of ‘greening’ the WTO Aid-for-Trade Initiative and the agenda of the UN Capacity Building Task Force on Trade, Environment and Development. This will help mitigate the risk of a circular divide becoming entrenched, and establish a level playing field for circular trade. Key areas for circular capacity-building that Aid-for-Trade could focus on include: investing in infrastructure to enable domestic circular activities such as repairing, remanufacturing and recycling; trade infrastructure – in particular, building capacity for electronic Prior Informed Consent interoperability; customs systems and enforcement measures to counter illegal waste shipment; circular production skills and training; and policy development
Add a separate WTO notification classification for the circular economy. The WTO notification system offers a valuable process for encouraging transparency and coordination on circular trade-related measures and legislation. Circular economy measures are not classed under a specific category within the WTO notification system, which makes it harder for countries to track and understand developments. As such, including ‘circular economy-related policies’ as an environmental category within the WTO notification system could help resolve this issue. Alongside this, support for capacity-building is needed to help countries report more frequently and accurately on such policy developments. Building on the value provided from the WTO notification system, a prioritization and knowledge-sharing exercise between willing countries, hosted by the likes of TESSD, GACERE or the regional circular economy coalitions, would also help identify the evolving areas (or lack thereof) of regulations and standards most critical for circular trade, and where opportunities exist for mutual recognition or cooperation towards common standards (for example on extended producer responsibility), as well as the relevant bodies that can be used to help align on global standards. This exercise could also be used to assess, compile and promote best-practice circularity standards and regulations.
Recognizing that limitations in trade nomenclature inhibit facilitation of circular trade flows in a coordinated way, establish a working group that includes relevant stakeholders such as the World Customs Organization (WCO) and national border and environmental agencies. The working group could identify practical solutions to better capture and communicate circular-relevant information on goods at international borders in a way that is globally interoperable and compatible with the WCO’s Harmonized System (HS) codes. Plurilateral pilot projects could be launched between willing countries to pilot technological and procedural solutions for improving the transparency and traceability of circular trade flows, and to better understand the challenges related to specific trade flows (e.g. e-waste as compared with scrap metals).

Priority 5: Developing common standards and metrics for circularity

Commonly accepted standards and metrics will be a crucial element of global governance for the circular transition, both operationally and for reporting purposes. On the one hand, coordinated and internationally compatible standards and metrics on circularity will be needed to keep the basic ‘plumbing’ of the circular economy running; this is likely to affect everything from certifying products and processes to facilitating customs clearances (see Priority 4) and setting benchmarks for financial products (see Priority 3). On the other hand, a shared taxonomy of circularity criteria will be needed more broadly to measure performance (or the lack thereof) against international environmental targets.

Businesses and organizations must be able to measure and report on their circular practices. Cities, regions, governments and intergovernmental organizations will also need to monitor and report on their progress towards the circular economy, for instance to meet current or envisaged reporting requirements associated with multilateral environmental agreements such as the Paris Agreement and the upcoming binding instrument to end plastic pollution by 2040. The EU, for instance, has developed the Circular Economy Monitoring Framework129 to track progress across all member states in a consistent manner; the framework was last revised in May 2023. However, most countries lack adequate frameworks for monitoring and measuring progress, not only for waste but for overall material flows.

Many different standards and metrics will need to be developed. They will need to span many sectors and all stages of the value chain, including but not limited to the following areas: product design; procurement; cleaner production; circular business models (e.g., product-service systems130); decent work; supply-chain transparency and traceability; and reuse, repair, refurbishment, remanufacturing, recycling and waste management. Common standards and metrics also need to cover governance and performance aspects such as financial and non-financial reporting, organizational strategy and macroeconomic governance.

The problem is that no standards and metrics currently exist for some of the areas listed above, while for others there are already multiple different standards and metrics across many jurisdictions. This results in a complex, patchy and fragmented policy landscape – making it costly and operationally challenging for MSMEs and multinationals alike to prepare for and comply with different rules.

Many stakeholders, including businesses, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and governments, are calling for greater efforts to build a more consistent and coherent set of global standards and metrics – at least for those activities with a transboundary element.

Box 7. A complex and fragmented landscape of standards and metrics

The following paragraphs present a snapshot, by category, of existing circular economy standards and metrics and those in development:

Circular organizational and management approaches cover areas such as product-service systems, procurement, reporting and ecodesign. Examples include the UK’s BS8001 standard, France’s Pr XP X30-901 standard and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards E5 (which underpins the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive). The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is developing a series of standards (ISO 59000) to facilitate circular economy implementation. The first tranche, published in 2024, includes principles and guidance for implementation, as well as guidance on the transition of business models and value networks.
Circularity assessment and reporting tools and metrics have recently been or are under development to support companies with compliance and reporting. Leading examples include the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)’s ‘Circular Transition Indicator’, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s ‘Circulytics’, the Boston Consulting Group’s ‘CIRCelligence’ and Circle Economy’s ‘Circle Assessment’. In addition, many companies have emerged to help businesses embed circular traceability and transparency within their operations and the whole value chain. The Global Reporting Initiative has two related standards, GRI 301 Materials and GRI 306 Waste, which respectively set out reporting requirements on these topics; the two standards can be used by organizations of any size or type, in any sector or geographic location, wanting to report their impacts in relation to materials use and waste.
Product and material standards are available for recycling and waste-handling (e-stewards, R2 Standards, WEEELABEX), and refurbishment and remanufacturing (FIRA/REMAN001: 2019, IEC TC 111, ANSI RIC001.1-2016 and BS 8887–220: 2010). There are also product-specific standards such as the BSI PAS 141:2011 for used electrical and electronic goods.
Supply-chain traceability and transparency standards include the GS1 Global Traceability Standard (GTS2), PR3’s standard for reuseable packaging, the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)’s traceability standards for sustainable garments and footwear, and the circularity.ID Open Data Standard for fashion.

Source: Barrie et al. (2022), The role of international trade in realizing an inclusive circular economy.

MSMEs (in addition to individual entrepreneurs) play a crucial role in driving innovation, creating local jobs and fostering local resilience within the circular economy. However, these enterprises, particularly in developing countries, face the prospect of higher barriers when it comes to conforming to circular economy standards. Design, production and traceability requirements will all create compliance burdens for small businesses, especially given regulatory challenges, limited access to finance and a lack of technical expertise. If the full potential of MSMEs as engines of circularity is to be realized, they will need targeted ‘standards and metrics’ support provided by governments, NGOs, business associations and intergovernmental agencies; such support could usefully include capacity-building programmes, access to financing mechanisms and enabling policy environments.

To garner political support for the circular economy around the world and embed it within the sustainable development agenda, it is vital that decision-makers understand and articulate the socio-economic opportunities it offers. A number of projects are working to build relevant metrics and standards, and to compile evidence and data on the socio-economic aspects and impacts of the circular economy. The specific aim with these projects is to improve data quality and create more definitions and indicators. Recent efforts include work by the UN System of Environmental Economic Accounting and the ILO. In addition, the Jobs in the Circular Economy Initiative – a joint programme by the Circle Economy Foundation and the Solutions for Youth Employment Programme of the World Bank Group – is working with governments, research agencies and statistical bureaus to align definitions, databases, methodologies and models used to measure employment related to the circular economy.

Box 8. Towards global circularity standards – a Global Circularity Protocol

Having commonly accepted standards for businesses along global supply chains will be a key element of the circular economy transition. In 2023, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) launched the Global Circularity Protocol (GCP) in collaboration with the One Planet Network.131 This voluntary framework for business ‘aims to address key accountability and policy gaps currently impeding the scaling of circularity globally’.132 It recognizes the importance of incorporating environmental and social indicators into measures of the impacts of circular economy practices, and the need for consistent metrics and a common language of circularity. Consistent and harmonized reporting is crucial for value-chain transparency, while harmonized methods for valuing assets and quantifying/adjusting for risk will be necessary to support the financing of circular economy businesses. The GCP will include a corporate performance and accountability system for circularity. As the creator of the protocol, WBCSD aims to make it the go-to framework for companies seeking to assess, measure, set science-based targets for, and report progress on resource efficiency and circularity in a consistent manner that enables comparison.

Source: WBCSD (undated), ‘Global Circularity Protocol (GCP)’, https://www.wbcsd.org/actions/global-circularity-protocol.

Priority 5 – Summary of recommendations for international policymakers

Below we recommend a series of actions the global community could take to help develop and disseminate standards and metrics in a way that incentivizes the establishment of an inclusive circular economy.

Ensure widespread adoption of ISO 59000 standards both up to 2030 and beyond. Deepen cooperation with international bodies such as ISO and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) to facilitate implementation of the first tranche of ISO 59000 standards, published in 2024. As many MSMEs, particularly in developing countries, will not be able to afford the fees to access the standards, they will need to be provided with targeted support.
Develop and ensure the adoption of key performance indicators (KPIs) and metrics that can be universally used to assess and drive circularity in various sectors and industries. The new KPIs and metrics should be based on the WBCSD’s GCP. They should be developed in cooperation with businesses, as well as with national statistical agencies that are collecting national-level data on industrial sectors.
Using specialized agencies such as the ITU and ILO, develop normative standards and guidelines for the circular economy that are freely available and accessible, and that provide a common reference point for countries and businesses to follow. The UN should lead this work. The integration of circularity into any post-2030 SDG framework will require specific, measurable and time-sensitive targets.
For the post-2030 SDG context, establish robust data protocols and reporting mechanisms for national statistical agencies to track progress on circular economy initiatives and actions. This is needed to ensure transparency and accountability through regular monitoring and reporting. Current reporting on the SDGs has been hampered by a lack of data and by capacity problems in national and intergovernmental statistical agencies.

Only 17 per cent of the SDG targets are on track to be met by 2030, while the remaining 83 per cent are showing limited progress, no progress or regression. See United Nations (2024), The Sustainable Development Goals Report.
Sachs, J. D., Lafortune, G. and Fuller, G. (2024), Sustainable Development Report 2024: The SDGs and the Summit of the Future, Dublin: Dublin University Press, p. 35, https://doi.org/10.25546/108572.
Barrie and Schröder (2023), ‘A global roadmap for an inclusive circular economy’.
Nerini et al. (2024), ‘Extending the Sustainable Development Goals to 2050 — a road map’.
Dixson-Declève, S. et al. (2022), Earth4All – A Survival Guide for Humanity, Club of Rome, https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/earth4all-book.
Schroeder, P. and Barrie, J. (2022), ‘Is going circular just? Environmental justice and just transition – key elements for an inclusive circular economy’, Field Actions Science Reports, Vol. 24, pp. 20–25, https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/6864.
Fuller et al. (2022), ‘Pollution and health: a progress update’.
Schröder, P. (2020), Promoting a Just Transition to an Inclusive Circular Economy, Research Paper, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/04/promoting-just-transition-inclusive-circular-economy.
Beamer, K. et al. (2023), ‘Island and Indigenous systems of circularity: how Hawai‘i can inform the development of universal circular economy policy goals’, Ecology and Society, 28(1):9, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13656-280109.
WIEGO (2013), ‘Waste Pickers: The Right to Be Recognized as Workers’, June 2013, https://www.wiego.org/resources/waste-pickers-right-be-recognized-workers; and ILO (2013), Sustainable development, decent work and green jobs, International Labour Conference, 102nd Session, 15 March 2013, Report V, https://www.ilo.org/resource/conference-paper/ilc/102/sustainable-development-decent-work-and-green-jobs-0.
Circle Economy, International Labour Organization and World Bank (2023), Decent work in the circular economy: An overview of the existing evidence base, May 2023, https://www.circle-economy.com/resources/decent-work-in-the-circular-economy.
Barrie, Salminen, Schröder and Stucki (2024), National circular economy roadmaps: A global stocktake for 2024.
Ibid.
European Commission (2024), ‘Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation’, https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/sustainable-products/ecodesign-sustainable-products-regulation_en.
SWITCH to Circular Economy Value Chains (undated), ‘Switch to Circular Economy Value Chains’, https://www.switchtocircular.eu.
European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform (undated), ‘Circular Economy Research Center (CERC)’, https://circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/en/education/circular-economy-research-center-cerc-0.
In simplified terms, EPR is a type of policy that extends a producer’s responsibility for its products to the post-consumption stage. This requires the producer to ensure proper disposal, recycling or reuse of its products once the consumer has finished with them, take responsible for the sustainable management of waste from its products, and cover the costs of doing so. The idea of EPR is to encourage the production of goods that are more durable, repairable and recyclable, and therefore reduce their end-of-life cost burden.
Couder, N., Katrakis, E. and Nacci, G. (eds) (2021), Incentives to boost the circular economy A guide for public authorities, Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/51378e0a-d303-11eb-ac72-01aa75ed71a1.
Circle Economy (2022), Thinking beyond borders to achieve social justice in a global circular economy: Actions for governments and multilateral bodies, June 2022, https://www.circle-economy.com/resources/thinking-beyond-borders-to-achieve-social-justice-in-a-global-circular-economy.
European Commission (2023), ‘Proposal for a Directive on common rules promoting the repair of goods’, 22 March 2023, https://commission.europa.eu/document/afb20917-5a6c-4d87-9d89-666b2b775aa1_en.
UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) (2024), ‘Outcomes of UNEA-6’, https://www.unep.org/environmentassembly/unea6/outcomes.
Creutzig, F. et al. (2024), ‘Demand-side strategies key for mitigating material impacts of energy transitions’, Nature Climate Change 14, pp. 561–72, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02016-z.
One Planet Network (undated), ‘Global Strategy on Sustainable Consumption and Production’, https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/globalstrategy.
Akenji, L., Bengtsson, M. and Salem, J. (2015), Sustainable Consumption Guide for Policymakers: Debunking Myths and Outlining Solutions (Asia Edition), IGES Japan and UNEP, https://www.iges.or.jp/en/publication_documents/pub/policyreport/en/5349/SC-Guide-For-Policymakers%28low-resolution%29.pdf.
UNEP and International Resource Panel (2024), Bend the trend.
G7 (2024), ‘G7 Trade Ministerial Meeting – Ministerial Statement’, 17 July 2024, https://www.g7italy.it/wp-content/uploads/Trade-Ministers-Reggio-Calabria-Declaration-Final-clean-approved-by-TWG.pdf.
World Bank (2023), Squaring the Circle: Policies from Europe’s Circular Economy Transition, https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/publication/squaring-circle-europe-circular-economy-transition.
Barrie, Salminen, Schröder and Stucki (2024), National circular economy roadmaps: A global stocktake for 2024.
World Bank (2022), Squaring the Circle.
Dissanayake, R. (2023), GPGs and Where to Fund Them: The Startling Implications of Financing Global Public Good Provision for the Multilateral Development Banks, Center for Global Development, https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/gpgs-and-where-fund-them-startling-implications-financing-global-public-good-provision.pdf.
World Bank Group (2024), ‘New Financing Tools Receive Major Funding Boost’, press release, 19 April 2024, https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2024/04/19/new-financing-tools-receive-major-funding-boost.
Center for Global Development (2023), ‘Strengthening Multilateral Development Banks: The Triple Agenda’, 19 July 2023, https://www.cgdev.org/publication/strengthening-multilateral-development-banks-triple-agenda.
UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2024), ‘Foreign direct investment in developing economies fell 9% in 2023’, 22 January 2024, https://unctad.org/news/foreign-direct-investment-developing-economies-fell-9-2023.
Ahn, J., Habib. A., Malacrino, D. and Presbitero, A. F. (2023), ‘Fragmenting Foreign Direct Investment Hits Emerging Economies Hardest’, International Monetary Fund (IMF), IMF blog, 5 April 2023, https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/04/05/fragmenting-foreign-direct-investment-hits-emerging-economies-hardest.
Krausmann, F. et al. (2017), ‘Global socioeconomic material stocks rise 23-fold over the 20th century and require half of annual resource use’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(8), pp. 1880–85, doi:10.1073/pnas.1613773114.
Schröder, P. and Raes, J. (2021), Financing an inclusive circular economy: De-risking investments for circular business models and the SDGs, Research Paper, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/07/financing-inclusive-circular-economy/02-sdgs-and-how-circular-economy-finance-can-0.
Gbohoui, W., Ouedraogo, R. and Some, Y. M. (2023), Sub-Saharan Africa’s Risk Perception Premium: In the Search of Missing Factors, IMF Working Papers, Volume 2023, Issue 130, Washington, DC: IMF, https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2023/130/001.2023.issue-130-en.xml.
Ibid.
OECD (2024), Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs 2024: An OECD Scoreboard, Paris: OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/financing-smes-and-entrepreneurs-2024_fa521246-en.html.
UNEP (2023), Unlocking Circular Economy Finance in Latin America and the Caribbean: The Catalyst for a Positive Change: Findings and recommendations for Policymakers and the Financial Sector, Nairobi: UNEP, https://www.unepfi.org/publications/unlocking-circular-economy-finance-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean-the-catalyst-for-a-positive-change.
United Nations (undated), ‘Financing for Sustainable Development’, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/financing-for-development.
https://www.bridgetown-initiative.org.
Paris Pact for People & the Planet (undated), https://pactedeparis.org/en.php.
Pacte de Paris pour les Peoples et la Planète [Paris Pact for People & the Planet] (undated), https://pactedeparis.org/pdf/pacte-de-paris-pour-les-peuples-et-la-planete-en.pdf.
Global Environment Facility (2021), ‘Circular Economy Regional Initiative (CERI)’, https://www.thegef.org/projects-operations/projects/10328.
Circle Economy (2022), Unlocking the Potential of International Financial Institutions in the Circular Economy Transition: A high-level roadmap, 10 November 2022, https://www.circle-economy.com/resources/unlocking-the-potential-of-international-financial-institutions-in-the-circular-economy-transition.
Bitsadze, R. (2024), ‘MDBs publish shared vision for circular economy finance at WCEF 2024’, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 15 April 2024, https://www.ebrd.com/news/2024/mdbs-publish-shared-vision-for-circular-economy-finance-at-wcef-2024.html.
African Development Bank (2024), The Africa Circular Economy Facility: The enabler of the circular transition in Africa, https://www.afdb.org/sites/default/files/2024/03/06/africa_circular_economy_facility_-_the_enabler_of_circular_transiion_in_africa.pdf.
World Economic Forum (2021), Five Big Bets for the Circular Economy in Africa, Insight Report, April 2021, https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/five-big-bets-circular-economy-africa.
Asian Development Bank (2021), ‘MDB Just Transition High-Level Principles’, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/related/238191/MDBs-Just-Transition-High-Level-Principles-Statement.pdf.
Bitsadze (2024), ‘MDBs publish shared vision for circular economy finance at WCEF 2024’; European Investment Bank (2024), ‘A Shared Vision for the Circular Economy’, https://www.eib.org/attachments/press/20240412-mdb-ce-wg-shared-vision-for-the-circular-economy-wcef-2024-docx.pdf.
International Institute for Sustainable Development (undated), ‘Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4)’, https://sdg.iisd.org/events/fourth-international-conference-on-financing-for-development-ffd4.
https://www.thegef.org/projects-operations/projects/10328.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2018), Mainstreaming trade to attain the Sustainable Development Goals, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21419SDG_Publication_E.pdf.
Uehara, T. K. (2023), ‘Planetary Welcare principles for just and sustainable futures: A compass for system change, trade reforms, and transformations’, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 20(1), doi:10.1080/15487733.2023.2300885 (Directory of Open Access Journals – DOAJ).
WTO (undated), ‘Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA)’, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/ega_e.htm.
Barrie, J. et al. (2022), Trade for an inclusive circular economy: A framework for collective action, Recommendations from a global expert working group, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, https://doi.org/10.55317/9781784135294.
Barrie, J., Anantharaman, M., Oyinlola, M. and Schröder, P. (2022), ‘The circularity divide: What is it? And how do we avoid it?’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 180, 106208, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106208.
Barrie, J. et al. (2022), ‘Overview of circular trade flows’, in The role of international trade in realizing an inclusive circular economy, Research Paper, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, https://doi.org/10.55317/9781784135393.
Schröder and Barrie (2024), ‘What is Circular Resource Nationalism?’.
Eurostat (undated), ‘Monitoring framework’, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/circular-economy/monitoring-framework.
A product-service system (PSS) is a business model offering the function of the product, not the product itself. See, for example, Mont, O. (2002), ‘Clarifying the concept of product–service system’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 3, pp. 237–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00039-7.
WBCSD (undated), ‘Global Circularity Protocol (GCP)’, https://www.wbcsd.org/actions/global-circularity-protocol.
Ibid.

Previous chapter Next chapter