See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/367329390

Sometimes linear, sometimes circular: States of the economy and transitions

to the future

Article  in  Journal of Cleaner Production · March 2023

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136138

CITATIONS READS

0 138

1 author:

Piero Morseletto
Rotterdam School of Management
11 PUBLICATIONS   690 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Influential visualizations and the influence of visualizations View project

Global Environmental Challenges View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Piero Morseletto on 25 January 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Cleaner Production 390 (2023) 136138

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Sometimes linear, sometimes circular: States of the economy and

transitions to the future
Piero Morseletto a, b
a
Rotterdam School of Management, Department of Business-Society Management, Erasmus University, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
b
Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bôas de A common thread in the circular economy literature is the linear–circular contrast. This study shows that the
Almeida economy has always been a mix of circular and linear applications but in varying proportions. Furthermore, the
scrutiny of emblematic examples both reveals misconceptions and enriches the extant knowledge of both
Keywords: frameworks and their relationship. This study also explains which aspects encourage an economy to lean towards
Linear and circular economy
either the linear or the circular (i.e., profit, scarcity, circumstances, and business opportunities), why the
Lock-ins
economy should be circular, and which factors (e.g., redundancy, overproduction, fast consumption) prevent the
Economic history
Economic development systematic application of circular practices by favouring the throwaway society. The lock-ins/systemic path-
Transitions dependent forces that underpin and perpetuate the linear economy are analysed together with their effects on the
Environmental sustainability economic system. Finally, this study considers three pathways named ‘lessening’, ‘sharing’ and ‘valorising’ for
the diffusion of circular solutions and the disarticulation of the linear-economy drivers.

1. Introduction
The Circular Economy (CE) can be defined as an economic frame­
work aimed at the conscious and efficient use of products and resources
through their reuse, reduction and recirculation, long-term value
retention, and closing loops in production/consumption (i.e., recycling
resources and minimising waste). In recent years, the CE has gained
growing attention among scholars, practitioners, and decision-makers
(e.g., Haas et al., 2020; Centobelli et al., 2021; Berry et al., 2022).
Probably thus far, no other economic framework connected with sus­
tainability has received equivalent attention. Besides the catchy name,
this popularity can be attributed to the bridging of production and
consumption at the system, technology and product levels. Moreover,
CE implementation can produce relevant social, technological, institu­
tional and economic change that intersects with multiple aspects of the
sustainability transition such as business model innovation, roles of in­
stitutions, governance rules and instruments (e.g., Schöggl et al., 2020;
Hansen et al., 2021; Henrysson and Nuur, 2021).
The intrinsic idea of the CE is presented in opposition to that of the
Linear Economy (LE) (EMF - Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Pearce
and Markandya (1987) may have originally denominated the “linear
economy” by referring to Boulding’s (1966) seminal work “The Eco­
nomics of the Coming Spaceship Earth”. Here, the open economy (called
the "cowboy economy") is compared to the closed economy of the future
("spaceman economy”). The LE can be described as an economy that
starts from virgin raw materials and ends in landfill – passing through
production and consumption without any form of recycling. The LE is
characterised by defined beginnings, ends, and directions, and
condensed in formulas such as “make-use-dispose”, “take-­
make-use-dispose”, or “cradle-to-grave”.
Frequently, the LE is represented as the current economy whereas the
CE is the one to aspire towards. Stahel (1982, 73) stated: “today, in­
dustrial activity involves a linear production consumption system with
inbuilt environmental deterioration at both ends”. However, the
largely-used expression “the current linear economy” (google scholar
counts about 800 entries) is inexact because the economy is not a linear
monolith. Obviously, the expression is hyperbolic, while expressions
such as ‘the dominant linear economy’ or ‘the prevailing linear economy
should be used. Beyond semantic issues, the linear-circular contraposi­
tion offers an interesting angle of investigation for transition and sus­
tainability studies. This research aims to demonstrate that the economy
has always been a mix of CE and LE but in varying proportions. More­
over, this study intends to challenge the idea of the one (transition)
direction, from linear to circular, to show that more nuanced explana­
tions are possible. Then, the two frameworks and their pathways are
investigated by answering some basic questions. Why does the economy

E-mail addresses: piero.morseletto@gmail.com, morseletto@rsm.nl.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136138
Received 4 December 2022; Received in revised form 5 January 2023; Accepted 20 January 2023
Available online 21 January 2023
0959-6526/© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
P. Morseletto
lean either toward the linear or circular? What favours the transition
from one or the other? Should the economy move to circular? If yes,
what factors prevent this from happening? What pathways are then
possible?
By answering these questions, the paper contributes to the literature
on business and sustainability transitions by providing insights into the
drivers, dynamics, and pathways of both the LE and CE, while also
assessing the conditions that would favour the CE in the long run.
2. Materials and methods
This study adopts an ontological approach, interpreting the term
ontological with Goertz, that is “to designate the core characteristics of a
phenomenon and their interrelationships” (Goertz, 2006, 5). Along this
line, this study considers linear and circular applications as character­
istics of business and the state of the economy. Accordingly, these states
are strongly embedded in the structure and dynamics of business and
economic systems, which vary over historical periods. However, in the
footsteps of Polanyi (2001), a historical method is not applied here:
episodes or trends of the past are considered with the sole aim of
providing an explanation and casting light on possible transitions.
In the following sections, the analysis proceeds through interlinked
phases. In the first phase, this research examines significant examples of
linear and circular cases in various periods (section 3). Here, the ex­
amples are selected amongst products or materials from the past, which
are as familiar as possible to the reader, for instance, considering those
that are still in use worldwide. The purpose is to locate the linear and
circular economies in a time perspective to understand the boundaries
between the two states while identifying the factors that facilitate either
one or the other.
The second phase (section 4) summarises in a structured manner the
benefits of the CE for the economy, society and the environment – as
identified by the extant research – to explain why the transition from a
linear to a circular economy is needed. Related to this is the third phase
(section 5), which aims to identify the systemic linear forces that hinder
the transition from the LE to the CE. This analytical phase draws upon
studies on path dependence, consumerism and production systems, but
it transcends traditional studies of drivers and barriers to the CE in the
literature. In the fourth phase, the systemic linear forces are counter­
posed to possible CE transition trajectories the economy can take (sec­
tion 6).
For the sake of keeping the analysis tight and meaningful, this study
selects three trajectories, which are compatible with the CE, according
to three characteristics: 1. they are already identified in the literature; 2.
they are associated to the economic and cultural shifts that offer several
discussion points; and 3. they are different enough to evidence alter­
native perspectives on transition but not too dissimilar to prevent syn­
ergy or convergence.
3. Circular solutions
The CE is realised through various industrial and business solutions
and applications. Scholars have classified them with preference for de­
nominations starting with the letter R (more precisely, RE, the suffix
meaning repetition). This tendency derived from the initial 3R – Reduce,
Reuse, and Recycle – a formula that emerged among US eco-activists in
the 60s and was progressively institutionalised in waste management
practices (Lounsbury, 2005). In the gradual conceptualisation of the CE,
the 3R evolved to encompass repair, refuse, rethink, refurbish, redesign,
recovery, repurpose, and remanufacture (e.g., Reike et al., 2022). Other
industrial and business solutions include sharing, upgrading, cascading,
and maintaining. Historically, these solutions have been applied to a
multiplicity of products and resources and have expanded or contracted
in the economy for diverse reasons and circumstances.
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 390 (2023) 136138
3.1. Circular in the age of scarcity
Trade, markets and economic systems existed in ancient civilisations
as rudimentary economies took shape at the beginning of human soci­
eties (Finley, 1999; Earle, 1997). Thus, CE solutions date as far back as
humans themselves. In the Prehistoric Era – the longest period in human
history – our ancestors reused, repaired and upgraded artefacts while
several materials were recycled (Megarry, 1995). In the Bronze Age,
copper was re-melted, while in the centuries, metal-made objects of any
sort were melted down to create new ones, such as coins or weapons.
Glass is another ancient case of recycling. Even wood, one of the most
abundant materials, was extensively reused. For example, good-quality
wood from vessels was reemployed in buildings (Schiffer et al., 2017). In
addition, salvaged bricks are likely the most reused construction ele­
ments in history (Smil, 2013).
Agricultural tools have always been shared like in nowadays co­
operatives. Livestock manure (still used today) was the main fertiliser
from the Neolithic to the post-war era, while urine was used for tanning
leather since Roman times (Federico, 2008; Jones, 2016). In Babylonia,
soap was made from animal by-products and this tradition endured for
millennia (Ockerman and Hansen, 1999). Standardised and specialised
transport containers date back to Mesopotamia and Egypt in the late
fourth millennia B.C. (Bevan, 2014). Since then, jars, amphorae, barrels,
glass vessels, and sealable sacks have constantly been refilled and reused
as containers (Bevan, 2014; Twede, 2002).
These are just a few samples of the myriad of circular solutions
applied in past economic systems whose traces are visible today. How­
ever, a common trait is evident: materials and objects tended to be
precious in an age that can be defined as the age of scarcity. When
something required time, skills labour, and resources, it was preserved.
Therefore, objects tended to be used, repaired and reused to exhaustion,
while materials were recycled as much as possible. In a CE lexicon,
products and materials kept their value over time and stayed in the
economy to the largest extent possible. This state was also induced by
limiting factors such as energy constraints, limited knowledge, and
rudimentary technology. However, it is possible to advance that CE
solutions derived from a cultural attitude aimed at conserving resources,
which were valuable, expensive, or requiring effort to be obtained. This
attitude seems best developed when scarcity exists and is acknowledged.
3.2. Circular in the age of opportunities
Circular solutions are not only determined by scarcity. Opportunities
for earnings, reducing costs or simple convenience are equally likely to
resonate with CE applications. Recalling the famous Adam Smith’s quote
about butchers1 who are motivated by “their own interest”, butchers
also sell discarded animal parts for profit. Rendering is a modern term
for an ancient process that converts excess fat, bones, hoofs, and offal,
into stable materials such as lard, tallow, candles and detergents (Ock­
erman and Hansen, 1999). The rendering industry evolved over the
years producing nowadays a wide range of inputs for cosmetics and
medicines. In the early industrialisation of the slaughterhouse, meat
makers discovered novel commercial opportunities from waste. For
instance, animal charcoals were used in the clarification of sugars; once
exhausted, they were employed for making phosphorus fertilizer and
small bones were used for producing matches (Barles, 2014). Likewise,
highly perishable and smelly by-products were transformed into prof­
itable fertilizers (Ockerman and Hansen, 1999).
Business opportunities attracted the so-called “rag-and-bone men”
around the world (also in rich countries up to a few decades ago); these
1
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that
we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.” at page
119 of Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations, Vol 1. Penguin Books, 1999.
P. Morseletto
were peddlers collecting cloth and metal products to resell them as such
or as raw materials; Strasser (1999) demonstrates that the cash received
in exchange was a catalyst for the consumer society. Therefore, these
reuse/recycle strategies indirectly favoured the expansion of LE solu­
tions (see section 3).
In most early industrial histories, many by-products of one industry
entered as the raw material of another. For instance, then as now, cotton
waste from textile mills was used for multiple purposes, such as for
papermaking (Barles, 2014). Another relevant case is represented by
containers and pallets. These units are at the base of global commerce
(also making widely available products made in a LE way, see below). In
the UK railways, wooden containers were common in the 1800s and
evolved to current typologies defined by the International Organization
for Standardization (Levinson, 2006); wooden skids and pallets
appeared in the late 19th century, but the handling equipment intro­
duced by the US Army in 1941 favoured the revolution in logistics in the
post-war period (Morana, 2018). Skids, pallets and containers are suc­
cessful cases of CE (they are durable, easy to repair, refurbish, and
maintain) and introduced significant efficiency gains in logistics (cost
reduction, supply chain improvement, production-schedule smooth­
ening, synchronisation of demand-based logistics) (Morana, 2018).
Several durable goods always had second-hand markets. Reuse is
also common for beverage kegs, gas cylinders, or barrels for chemicals,
which go back and forth according to well-run reverse-logistics prac­
tices. Companies tend to sell waste when there is a buyer (e.g., coconut
shells for making water filters), retrieve a product for making a new one
(e.g., used motor oil to be re-refined), or retail goods with a lifetime
warranty to gain the interest of clients. Thousands of other CE solutions
are in place such as renting repairing, maintaining and upgrading
equipment while remanufacturing centres and pawn/second-hand shops
are spread worldwide (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2019; Morseletto, 2020a).
Beyond these historical examples, the relevant point is that circular
solutions have been adopted by individuals or organisations, in cir­
cumstances where there is an opportunity for earnings, convenience,
cost reduction, service improvements, or enhancement of competitive
advantages. Reduction of environmental impacts should also be
included in this list, but business, financial and operation-driven aspects
prevailed in CE decisions.
4. Linear solutions
‘Make-use-dispose’ equates to a product, once used, being renounced
and becoming waste. A product’s end of life (EOL) generally occurs in a
landfill giving sense to the “cradle to grave” expression. However, the LE
should be considered in more extensive terms. For example, EOL only
partially represents waste; a fraction of products – not accounted for as
waste and little noticed in the literature – lie broken or forgotten.
Furthermore, the concept of waste is socially and culturally constructed
(Strasser, 1999; Hawkins, 2006). Circumstances can determine if the
same thing can be considered waste or a resource. Waste tends to grow
in times of abundance and diminish in times of necessity. Siniawer
(2018) illustrates these waste trends in post-war Japan: down (war’s
aftermath), up (the economic boom of the 1960s), down (the oil shocks
of the 1970s), up (the bubble years of the 1980s), down (slow-growth
era). As such, the history of waste does not seem too linear.
The LE is also associated with the depletion of scarce or non-
renewable resources, which gives it a negative connotation. However,
regardless of whether the economy is circular or linear, even the notion
of a resource varies with time and place (Muthoo, 2003). Moreover,
factors like availability, innovations, price variations and new knowl­
edge advancements lead to choosing renewable for non-renewables and
vice versa. Besides, even renewable resources are not limitless. Their
quality, quantity and renewability depend on demands, careful
use/exploitation and geo/chemical/physical conditions. These consid­
erations should help to understand that the LE is not just about waste
and depletion of resources, but it must deal with economic choices and
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 390 (2023) 136138
the context in which these take place. On this basis, the following sub­
sections explore how linear solutions emerged and why the drivers and
reasons for its persistence in economic systems.
4.1. Linear for convenience
The LE is often associated with the industrial revolution, despite – as
the CE – its existence dating back much further. One can posit that the
linear processes took off with the industrial revolution, but even this
view is not definitive, as illustrated by the garment industry. “From at
least the sixteenth century, fashion’s demotic stimuli unleashed desires
across European social ranks” (Lemire and Riello, 2008, 887). A vibrant
consumer culture was recorded in ancient times (see Berg, 2004), but
the textiles imported by the English East India Company created an
unprecedented appetite for change, new colours, and fashions
throughout Europe (Lemire and Riello, 2008). This aspect was primarily
led by the astonishing profits made by merchants that encouraged
materialistic imagination and behaviours, apparently never since
satisfied.
Profit was also the primary driver of large-scale industrialisation,
which accelerated and intensified the LE (see also the following sub­
section). Starting from this period, an unparalleled number of products
entered the new and existing markets. Here, variety was used by pro­
ducers to differentiate products, create competitive advantages and
conquer new consumers. The large number of products favoured LE
solutions in this period of increasing demand and economic growth
(Bairoch, 1982; Maddison, 2001). In general, linear productions tend to
favour profit and are easier to organise when the cost of inputs is low,
social costs are not internalised in products, or there is no need to
minimise waste, close material cycles, or reuse products or their parts.
The same role of profit can be observed when companies decrease
the durability of products or make them easily unfashionable. These
expedients are often equated with planned obsolescence (i.e., the
deliberate design of a product with limited useful life), which is attrib­
uted to American manufacturers from the 1920s (Gartman, 2013).
Nonetheless, less durable products have a long history well before car
design (Stobart and Van Damme, 2010; Maycroft, 2009). In the absence
of standards or legal requirements, economic actors can continue prof­
itable businesses while perpetrating the LE in several ways. For instance,
cheap products that discourage reparability/maintenance, or spare parts
that are unavailable or too expensive (Morseletto, 2020a). Some prod­
ucts (e.g., incandescent lamps) are designed to have a short life and
repairing them is impossible by design (e.g., glue-based jointures). Other
products cannot be upgraded or use proprietary specifications (e.g.,
plugs or special codes) that prevent reuse, reparability, reassembly, or
upgrading to the advantage of producers (see Cooper, 2016). In this
logic, profits facilitate linear solutions, which in turn facilitate profits in
a self-enforcing mechanism.
4.2. Linear for affluence
The confluence of scientific and technological advancement coupled
with new investment strategies and entrepreneurial practices under­
pinned the industrial revolution and is still the driver of modern econ­
omies (e.g., Finley, 1999; Dosi et al., 1988; Wrigley, 1971/2017). In this
context, interconnected factors such as innovation, high productivity,
novel design concepts and new, cheap and easily available resources
(particularly energy and raw materials) have propelled continuous
growth in production and consumption. New products substituted the
old ones, then abandoned or discarded by consumers driven by new
(actual or perceived) needs (Mugge et al., 2010). Concurrently, logistic
challenges, excessive costs, or negligible energy savings have made
circular practices complicated (Smil, 2013).
This dynamic expanded the market with the ensuing explosion in the
variety and quantity of products (Witt, 2001). The spectacular growth of
production fuelled a pervasive culture of consumerism and
P. Morseletto
overconsumption with status and social recognition attached to them
(Cooper, 2016). Many durable and reusable products were replaced by
single-use, disposable, or short-life products (Strasser, 1999). Thanks to
business and marketing strategies, short-life products met with the
favour of consumers being perceived as convenient, hygienic, or time­
saving. It can be argued that the success of some products met and
nourished a “no-hassle mentality”, for which disposable and short-life
products can be used and discarded with the same ease.
The main point to highlight here is that production and consumption
(then, overproduction and overconsumption) are entangled and have
become mutually enforcing. Furthermore, changes in products interplay
with consumers’ needs, wishes, and behaviours (see Brouillat, 2015).
Many of these trends perpetrate linear business models, which are still
the preferred and most adopted models in the economy. This aspect can
be attributed to many reasons: first, negative externalities in the envi­
ronment are not included in resource prices (Nußholz, 2017); linear
solutions are kept; if new operations are established, linearity is easy to
replicate and implement because of its diffusion/applicability; big cor­
porations tend to maximise their total profit, the volume of sales, and
margin per unit sold, while productions are often decentralised and
operated by third parties, which replicate this model on a smaller scale.
Instead, circular models require expertise, investments, coordination,
and changes in the entire value chain (e.g., Lahti et al., 2018; Mishra
et al., 2018). As a consequence, linear models are often considered
simpler or more advantageous than circular solutions. In the same vein,
companies can be reluctant to engage in circular business models, for
example, because of capital tied up, operational risks, and fashion
vulnerability. Moreover, corporations can incur high transaction costs,
limited resource portfolios, and an uncertain business environment
(Lahti et al., 2018).
5. Why go circular?
CE solutions, as the one described and those currently existing in the
economy, derive from the application of principles such as waste
reduction, value retention, and narrowing and closing loops in pro­
duction/consumption (i.e., using fewer resources and recycling them)
(Morseletto, 2022). These principles can bring several benefits of eco­
nomic, environmental and social nature. Economic benefits encompass,
inter alia, optimisation, cost reductions (related to material and energy
saving), efficiency gains, saving finance, value retention, and the pro­
motion of innovation, economic growth and new business opportunities
(Sehnem et al., 2019; Berry et al., 2022; Bianchi and Coredella, 2022).
Environmental benefits are associated with reducing pollution (e.g.,
when products are reused and not produced ex novo), recovering energy
or materials, and lowering the demand for inputs (e.g., energy, water,
materials, virgin resources), which generally bring to less negative
environmental impacts (see Cantzler et al., 2020; Morseletto, 2020c;
Haas et al., 2020). Furthermore, specific CE solutions, through restora­
tion and regeneration practices, can improve, for example, biodiversity
and ecosystem services (Ali et al., 2018; Morseletto, 2020b; Priyadar­
shini and Abhilash, 2020). Social benefits may include job creation,
local community empowerment, cohesion, social inclusion and equity
(Schröder et al., 2020; Mies and Gold, 2021). These benefits justify why
circularity should be increased in the economic systems; said differently,
the CE offers viable solutions to meet the pressing societal need to
mitigate resource depletion and environmental degradation, and can
present a gateway towards a more sustainable and prosperous economy.
Nonetheless, the CE is not a flawless paradigm and sometimes needs
corrections to respect sustainability principles (see e.g., Sarkis et al.,
2022; Morseletto, 2022). Some CE solutions are expensive, do not
necessarily occur efficiently, have unclean production and high social
costs (Kjaer et al., 2019; Gregson et al., 2015). For instance, circular
consumption choices do not necessarily lead to a lower material foot­
print (Ottelin et al., 2020). Instead, market distortions, opportunity
costs, rebound effects, or profit-driven associated with CE choices can
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 390 (2023) 136138
produce social, economic and environmental adverse effects (Schröder
et al., 2019; Niero et al., 2021). Furthermore, the CE lacks a shared
framework on how organisations should apply CE solutions to (business)
operations or adapt their working/business models to CE principles
(Merli et al., 2018). On the social side, there is no agreement on how the
CE affects social aspects such as inequality, the role and rights of user­
s/consumers/citizens, and the exploitation of labour (Schröder et al.,
2019; Selvefors et al., 2019). These caveats do not invalidate the CE
model but prove that it needs to be applied carefully to improve (and not
damage) the economy, society, and natural systems. Only this way, the
CE allows move away from the LE, propose a new conceptualisation of
how the economic systems work, and promote a genuine transition to­
wards sustainability. Despite these possibilities, the LE currently pre­
vails while the CE lags behind with limited circular levels in the
economy. For example, global material extraction is increasing while the
socioeconomic cycling rate remains modest at only 6% input cycling
(see e.g., Haas et al., 2020).
6. What (Deeply) hinders a CE?
As seen in the previous sections, the economy is dotted with many LE
and CE solutions, and their proportion can vary as the economy evolves.
However, although CE ideas are sparking worldwide interest and are
increasingly embraced by governments and organisations, the imple­
mentation of the CE is far behind expectations and far-reaching changes
seem to be out of reach (Haas, 2022). Numerous scholars have investi­
gated possible barriers to a CE. For example, Tura et al. (2019) have
classified these according to several categories (e.g., economic, institu­
tional, organisational, etc.) previously identified in the literature.
However, the removal of barriers might not be enough to shift to a CE if
the systemic forces that perpetuate linearity endure. Various cultural,
social and organisational dynamics exist and tend to be self-reinforcing,
accumulated over time, and trace a sequence of actions difficult to
reverse. These forces generally take the name of lock-ins or path de­
pendencies in the research areas of complexity theory, evolutionary
economics, and technology studies (Liebowitz and Margolis, 1995;
Pierson, 2000). These concepts are used across social and political dis­
ciplines to explain the inertia in social/economic systems (Cantner and
Vannuccini, 2017; Liebowitz and Margolis, 1995). Possibly because of
the broad range of applications of these concepts, many but not always
consistent definitions are proposed in the literature. In some cases,
lock-ins and path dependence are used synonymously, in other cases,
one is seen as the outcome of the other, with the direction of causality
varying according to the characterisation of the terms (Cantner and
Vannuccini, 2017). For the sake of simplicity, this study considers
lock-ins and path dependence as the same concept to better focus on the
investigation of linear/circular dualism. Linear forces are systemic and
work at a wider and deeper level than barriers to a CE because they deal
with how people think and behave (e.g., as consumers, producers, ac­
tivists, decision-makers, etc.). These forces are rarely mentioned in the
CE literature and still represent a little-explored area of investigation.
This section examines the linear forces drawing upon what shaped
and strengthened the LE, as highlighted in the previous section. The
primary forces considered are related to: A) the structure of production
and consumption, and B) how products are thought/made/used.
These forces and related elements that underpin and preserve the LE
are represented in Fig. 1.
Notably, the economy is much more complex than a simple diagram,
but a diagram is useful to identify the few key elements that obstruct the
application of the CE and focus the discussion on these elements.
6.1. The structure of production and consumption
The structure of production and consumption underpinning the LE is
characterised by three core and connected elements: mass production,
cheap and affordable products, and mounting production/consumption.
P. Morseletto
Fig. 1. The main forces and related elements that underpin the LE.
Mass production is the manufacture of standardised products in large
quantities based – inter alia – on mechanisation, economies of scale, low
production costs, specialisation and division of labour (Sabel and Zeitlin,
2002). Historically, this allowed having relatively cheap products,
which enlarged the number of consumers and the amount of consump­
tion (Motz, 2016). In recent decades, products have generally been
inexpensive. This trend started in the late 1970s/early 1980s with the
convergence of increasing trade globalisation and efficiency gains
(mainly related to IT solutions) in production and transport, new man­
agement practices and science advancements (see e.g., Schor, 2010;
Crocker, 2018). Diminishing returns per unit produced and increasing
volumes have characterised the economy while resources (e.g., energy,
raw materials; see, for example, Bridge, 2009) have tended to remain
low priced (except for price shocks occurring due to exogenous events
such as the post-covid pandemics, or the war in Ukraine, which is taking
place as this paper is being written).
In general, products tend to be material intensive and embody
emissions-intensive materials (Charter and Tischner, 2017; see also Haas
et al., 2020). Mass production evolved into mass customisation, which
uses the same principles for the broad provision of personalized prod­
ucts; this occurred to correspond to dynamic markets characterised by
fragmented demand, heterogeneous niches and short product lifecycles
(Fogliatto et al., 2012).
In many countries, mass production plus cheap and affordable
products assured growth and prosperity with high levels of production,
high profits for producers, high sense of fulfilment/quality of life for
consumers. They also activated a spiral of mounting production/con­
sumption for which (prolific) production and (eager) consumption was
mutually enforced (see Røpke, 1999; Goodwin et al., 1997). All this also
happened because of the multiple dimensions of consumption, for
example, hedonic, aesthetic, ritualistic, communicative, and identity
seeking (Jackson, 2005; Gabriel and Lang, 2015), which production
creates, indulges or satisfies.
6.2. How products are thought/made/used
The second driver perpetuating the LE relates to how products are
thought/made/used, which is represented by “design for linearity”,
“purposeful waste”, and “no-hassle mentality”. These terms are pro­
posed here not as new concepts but as summarizing terms. Design for
linearity refers to products that are designed with little care for
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 390 (2023) 136138
durability, reliability, longevity, and disassembly (see Cooper, 2016;
Burns, 2010). Regardless of intentionality, design for linearity results in
products that are hardly reused or repaired mainly because of their low
cost. Connected to design for linearity is purposeful waste, which refers
to products thought to be transient and become soon waste, for example,
single-use products and packaging (Charter and Tischner, 2017; Hicks,
2018). The latter, beyond the original function (i.e., con­
taining/protection), has assumed many purposes (e.g., logistics, aes­
thetics, hygiene, information, promotion, differentiation); this has led to
over-packaging and unsustainable uses (Rundh, 2013). Finally, the
no-hassle mentality is the result of products that are of low value or
conceived to simplify use. To this category belongs cheap products or
disposable items, which are easier to use than reusable/refillable/r­
echargeable ones. The no-hassle mentality – equally of producers and
consumers – produces enormous quantities of waste and unnecessary
products.
The elements characterising the systemic linear forces are inter­
connected. For instance, in a fast-paced society, the no-hassle mentality
favours and is favoured by cheap and poor design but also by mass
production/customisation. The structure of production and consump­
tion, and how products are thought/made/used, tend to create over­
consumption/overproduction of products (for discussions see e.g.,
Schulz, 2007; Lane, 1990; Goodwin et al., 1997). Many of these products
are made for fast production/consumption. The result is a redundancy of
products that fosters a self-enforcing throwaway society (Cooper, 2016).
7. Results and discussion: transition pathways to a future CE
A full realisation of the CE requires passage through the facilitation
and diffusion of circular solutions and the disarticulation of the LE
drivers, which are at the base of the throughway society, as seen in the
previous section. This section briefly explores three pathways that
operate in this direction, here named ‘lessening’, ‘sharing’ and ‘valor­
ising’. The terms are chosen as overarching concepts containing multiple
ideas developed in transition and sustainability studies. Briefly, less­
ening implies using less (e.g., materials) but also renouncing unnec­
essary goods, as well as producing and consuming less. Sharing is
borrowing, lending, renting or leasing goods, which otherwise would be
underutilised. Finally, valorising deals with increasing the (effective and
perceived) quality of products and products’ parts and allowing them to
stay in the economy longer compared to lower-quality products. In these
P. Morseletto
terms, the three pathways imply changes in the current structure of
production and consumption and in how products are thought/made/
used (see also Fig. 1 above).
Lessening, sharing and valorising are inherently related to the CE as
they favour reuse or recirculation of products and products’ parts, and
their and long-term value retention. As mentioned in the method sec­
tion, the pathways result from three criteria: 1. they are already iden­
tified in the literature; 2. they are different enough to evidence
alternative perspectives on transition; 3. they are associated with eco­
nomic and cultural shifts which offer serval points for discussion.
Specifically, lessening includes concepts like reduction, frugality,
sufficiency dematerialisations, degrowth and economic contraction (see
Nesterova, 2020; Jungell-Michelsson and Heikkurinen, 2022); some of
these ideas trace back to the steady state advanced by Daly (1974).
Sharing encompasses concepts like collaborative consumption,
product-service systems, community sharing, access-based consump­
tion, gift economy, peer-to-peer economy, and second-hand economy,
according to who is the user and the type of use (Kathan et al., 2016;
Schor and Vallas, 2021). Valorising is linked to the design of products
and the multiple design strategies to contrast various forms of obsoles­
cence (Cooper, 2016; Morseletto, 2020a; Bakker et al., 2021). Addi­
tionally, lessening, sharing and valorising point to different transition
directions which are: having fewer products and materials, using them
more intensively, or employing them for long periods. Each pathway
implies a transformation in how products are conceptualised, produced
and used (see also Ortega Alvarado et al., 2022). Furthermore, the three
pathways deal with cultural shifts and involve all societal actors to
reduce materialistic affluence (Jackson, 2005; Gabriel and Lang, 2015).
In fact, culture imbues the structure of production and consumption and
the role of products. Therefore, the transition from a LE to a full CE
passes necessarily through cultural change, which implies changes in
values, social norms and economic visions. In sum, the three pathways
tend to contrast overconsumption, fast production/consumption, and
redundancy of products, as highlighted in the previous section.
Lessening can pursue this aim both on the demand and supply side.
On the demand side, end-users require fewer products up to a sufficient/
adequate level, which means eliminating the unnecessary (see Bocken
and Short, 2016). Therefore, a lessening-based approach by consumers
inevitably influences production and business models. Consequently on
the supply side, several corporate choices/approaches should be aban­
doned such as aggressive marketing, fast fashion, over-selling, or the
production of unnecessary or undesirable products. Concurrently,
educational programmes and ‘choice editing’ should be developed on
both sides of the market. Furthermore, lessening on the supply side
strongly refers to design and how products are thought of. Products must
be reconceptualised in the direction of high value and durability (see
valorising below); such an aspect can also relate to sharing products (see
sharing below). Lessening for producers can be associated with using
fewer resources, for example, through lightweight design, energy
saving, and additive manufacturing. Lessening can relate to more
intense uses (for instance, having fewer goods but being reused by more
users), which is again connected to valorising. Lastly, lessening can
imply profit reduction to producers, who can partially compensate for
the loss of earnings by producing higher-quality and more profitable
products. In this regard, the economy has always experienced changes in
production and consumption patterns, and obsolete products have
continuously exited the market.
Sharing has become a polysemic space exhibiting high levels of
contention (Schor and Vallas, 2021). However, in principle, sharing can
reduce production and consumption. Stated simply, if two or more
people share a product that all would have otherwise bought, the pro­
duction of that product should drop symmetrically; in other words,
production decreases compared to the level corresponding to each actor
buying their product (this aspect relates to lessening). The reduction of
consumption/production can happen regardless of whether sharing
occurs for free, at cost, or if is managed by a third party. Sharing can also
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 390 (2023) 136138
require having more durable goods because of the higher intensity of
use, which can boost the production of higher-quality products (this
aspect relates to valorising).
Several scholars have highlighted that sharing in some cases can
stimulate consumption (also indulgent consumption) besides increased
carbon emissions and the precarisation and degradation of work
(Acquier et al., 2019; Schor and Vallas, 2021). These negative effects
have been mainly investigated in relation to commercial sharing plat­
forms and their predatory and irresponsible practices. Conversely, there
are many virtuous cases (see e.g., Acquier et al., 2019) in which sharing
reduces the acquisition of new goods through the transition from
ownership-based to access-based models. Like every process, sharing
also requires monitoring and correction to prevent distortions. The
different forms of sharing should promote mutuality and reciprocity
while tending towards communitarian and morally attuned personal­
ized exchange (Codagnone et al., 2018; Schor and Vallas, 2021). In this
way, sharing can address the systemic linear forces (as depicted in Fig. 1)
and promote a robust transition to the CE.
Valorising can decrease the levels of production/consumption
simply keeping existing products longer in the economic systems
without the need for replacement. In valorising, products are charac­
terised by durability, reparability or upgradability. Within a LE logic,
products can be single-use, mono-purpose, unrepairable, or hard to
repair because of a lack of spare parts or excessive costs. In the same
vein, linear products can be subject to obsolescence, which can be of
different forms – e.g., aesthetic, technological, economical, efficiency (i.
e., when products have become respectively outmoded, outdated, too
costly, or experiencing a reduction of their initial capacity) (Morseletto,
2020a), and can be also programmed. Several design strategies have the
potential to prolong a product’s service life, for example, Design for
Longevity, Design for Reliability, Design for Durability, Design for
Disassembly, Design for Extended Use, Design for Pre- and Post-Use,
Design for Exchange, and Design for Multiple Use-Cycles) (see Charter
and Tischner, 2017; Morseletto, 2020a; Bakker et al., 2021). For
instance, design solutions can facilitate upgradability and modularity,
enable remanufacturing, prevent the failure of critical components, or
even stimulate emotional engagement; other solutions such as 3D
printing or additive manufacturing can enable repair while smart
products can use remote monitoring to prevent breaks or facilitate
predictive maintenance (see Bakker et al., 2021). All these samples
support circular strategies by creating opportunities to extend a prod­
uct’s lifespan.
As highlighted above, lessening, sharing and valorising are inter­
connected pathways and can be represented as overlapping as in Fig. 2.
In fact, having fewer products can require high-quality products, while
these demand fewer products to be produced. Concurrently, a
Fig. 2. lessening, sharing and valorising.
P. Morseletto
sufficiency culture can enforce the idea of sharing products, which can
promote durable products to share. In these terms, the three pathways
are mutually enforcing and have synergic power to contrast with the
throwaway society at the base of the LE.
Nonetheless, the three pathways have limitations and need to be
adjusted and regulated to neutralise distortions and rebound effects (see
Vivanco et al., 2016; Niero et al., 2021). For instance, the pathways,
once unleashed, can – in some cases – increase environmental pressures,
depress innovation or reduce efficiency. Moreover, lessening, sharing
and valorising need new or modified business models that accommodate
CE solutions, for example, sharing platforms require insurance and risk
management mechanisms to allow the right practice of reuse.
Producing/consuming less does not imply collapsing the economy
because revenue losses from reduced production can be compensated by
services or higher-value products as has historically occurred. However,
this transition needs vision and management by all actors involved.
Regulators can obstruct common linear practices through standards,
taxation, and prohibitions, while activating measures to discourage
cheap, low-quality and resource-intensive LE products. Concurrently,
regulators can favour innovation and circular operations through
guidelines, incentives, and tax breaks (Morseletto, 2020a). Regulators
also need to define CE roadmaps with well-defined objectives and
monitoring systems. Possible objectives could be, inter (multa) alia.
i) low/zero environmental impacts (e.g., no toxicity, low pollution
and energy consumption, minimisation of resources);
ii) strict design requirements (e.g., durability, disassembly, and
resource optimisation;
iii) necessary standards of products (e.g., recyclable, upgradable,
sharable/reusable.
Above this, regulators need to put in place strict measures to avoid
rebound effects in the CE from a production and consumption perspec­
tive (Ottelin et al., 2020).
Companies have a key role in changing production practices, but not
just in a few operations, as is currently the case. Corporations must adopt
on a large scale the several strategies and business models highlighted in
the literature (e.g., Blomsma et al., 2019; Woldeyes et al., 2022)
otherwise, the realisation of the CE remains partial or limited in effi­
ciency and optimisation. The transition to a full CE should occur through
innovation and drastically re-thinking products. Companies are
profit-seekers in a highly competitive context. To overcome companies’
reluctance, governments must define legal frameworks that favour CE
solutions and avoid opportunistic behaviours (i.e., make linear models
equally disadvantageous for every company). However, as Mishra and
colleagues (2018, 509) underline, “closing loops and creating successful
value propositions is complex and requires simultaneous reconfigura­
tion of key building blocks to ensure customer acceptance and business
viability”. For this, organisations must operate in a favourable but also
stimulating environment for the CE.
In this scenario, the role of society is not passive. The realisation of a
full CE requires profound changes in lifestyle and the way we think and
use products. These changes do not occur in a vacuum but are related to
significant cultural changes. People and societal actors are powerful
engines of transformation, but they must stay at the centre of societal
innovation (e.g., Lorek and Fuchs, 2013). In this vein, the people and the
cultural side of the CE need further research and application of cases.
One can think that the wealth of nations lies in the linear model
while modifying it would inevitably collapse GDP. As mentioned, waste
reduction can reduce GDP as reducing production (ceteris paribus)
surely does. However, with fewer products to buy, consumers would
have more income to be allocated to a diverse range of goods (e.g., high-
quality, durable goods) or services (e.g., wellness ones). In addition,
most macroeconomic models analysing the consequences of the transi­
tion to the CE show a positive/insignificant impact on aggregate out­
comes (McCarthy et al., 2018). Such an aspect does not deny the
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 390 (2023) 136138
possibility of major changes and adjustments, as has always occurred
historically (see e.g., Polanyi, 2001; Hershlag, 1980; Chai, 2011).
8. Conclusions
This study has challenged the idea of the one direction, from linear to
circular, and has shown the economy has always been a mix of CE and
LE. The economy can lean either toward one or the other because of
factors such as the profit of sellers, business opportunities or scarcity of
time, skills, labour, or resources. Equally, factors such as innovations,
the structure of costs and prices, or new knowledge advancements can
be relevant.
Despite some limitations, the CE offers viable solutions to meet
pressing societal issues. However, this study showed that lock-ins or
path dependencies can perpetuate the LE. It is the case for mass pro­
duction, cheap and affordable products, and mounting production/
consumption that connotes the structure of production and consump­
tion. Similarly, factors such as design for linearity, purposeful waste, and
no-hassle mentality in product manufacturing hinder the diffusion of CE
solutions. Finally, this study has proposed three different but comple­
mentary pathways, that is ‘lessening’, ‘sharing’ and ‘valorising’, to
explore the disarticulation of LE drivers. Future research could further
examine these pathways also investigating specific case studies of lock-
ins or path dependencies, and related solutions. As summarised by
Gregson and colleagues (2015, 235), the CE requires “radical trans­
formations to the economic order, including a fundamental recasting of
manufacture, retail, consumption and property rights”. If the CE is not
just about the economy, monetary value cannot be the sole guiding
metric. Redesigning or recalibrating our production/consumption
practices should contemplate degrowth or at least a marked evolution in
how we conceptualise growth for a true realisation of the CE.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
Ali, M., Kennedy, C.M., Kiesecker, J., Geng, Y., 2018. Integrating biodiversity offsets
within Circular Economy policy in China. J. Clean. Prod. 185, 32–43.
Acquier, A., Carbone, V., Massé, D., 2019. How to create value (s) in the sharing
economy: business models, scalability, and sustainability. Technol. Innov. Manag.
Rev. 9 (2).
Bairoch, P., 1982. International industrialisation levels from 1750 to 1980. J. Eur. Econ.
Hist. 11, 269–331.
Bakker, C.A., Mugge, R., Boks, C., Oguchi, M., 2021. Understanding and managing
product lifetimes in support of a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 279, 123764.
Barles, S., 2014. History of waste management and the social and cultural
representations of waste. In: Agnoletti, M., Neri Serneri, S. (Eds.), The Basic
Environmental History. Springer, Cham, pp. 199–226.
Berry, B., Haverkamp, J., Isenhour, C., Bilec, M.M., Lowden, S.S., 2022. Is convergence
around the circular economy necessary? Exploring the productivity of divergence in
US circular economy discourse and practice. Circ. Econom. Sustain. 1–26.
Berg, M., 2004. In pursuit of luxury: global history and British consumer goods in the
eighteenth century. Past Present 182 (1), 85–142.
Bevan, A., 2014. Mediterranean containerization. Curr. Anthropol. 55 (4).
Bianchi, M., Cordella, M., 2022. Does circular economy mitigate the extraction of natural
resources? Empirical evidence based on analysis of 28 European economies over the
past decade. Ecol. Econ. 203, 107607.
P. Morseletto
Blomsma, F., Pieroni, M., Kravchenko, M., Pigosso, D.C., Hildenbrand, J.,
Kristinsdottir, A.R., et al., 2019. Developing a circular strategies framework for
manufacturing companies to support circular economy-oriented innovation.
J. Clean. Prod. 241, 118271.
Bocken, N.M., Short, S.W., 2016. Towards a sufficiency-driven business model:
experiences and opportunities. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 18, 41–61.
Boulding, K., 1966. The economics of the coming spaceship Earth. In: Jarrett, H. (Ed.),
Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy, Resources for the Future. Johns
Hopkins University Press, pp. 3–14.
Bridge, G., 2009. Material worlds: natural resources, resource geography and the
material economy. Geogr. Compass 3 (3), 1217–1244.
Brouillat, E., 2015. Live fast, die young? Investigating product life spans and
obsolescence in an agent-based model. J. Evol. Econ. 25 (2), 447–473.
Burns, B., 2010. Re-evaluating obsolescence and planning for it. In: Cooper, T. (Ed.),
Longer Lasting Products - Alternatives to the Throwaway Society (39-60). CRC Press.
Cantner, U., Vannuccini, S., 2017. Innovation and lock-in. In: Bathelt, H., Cohendet, P.,
Henn, S., Simon, L. (Eds.), The Elgar Companion to Innovation and Knowledge
Creation, pp. 165–181.
Cantzler, J., Creutzig, F., Ayargarnchanakul, E., Javaid, A., Wong, L., Haas, W., 2020.
Saving resources and the climate? A systematic review of the circular economy and
its mitigation potential. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (12), 123001.
Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Esposito, E., Passaro, R., 2021. Determinants of the
transition towards circular economy in SMEs: a sustainable supply chain
management perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 242, 108297.
Chai, J.C., 2011. An Economic History of Modern China. Edward Elgar Publishing,
Cheltenham.
Charter, M., Tischner, U. (Eds.), 2017. Sustainable Solutions: Developing Products and
Services for the Future. Routledge.
Codagnone, C., Karatzogianni, A., Matthews, J., 2018. Platform Economics: Rhetoric and
Reality in the" Sharing Economy. Emerald Group Publishing.
Cooper, T. (Ed.), 2016. Longer Lasting Products: Alternatives to the Throwaway Society.
CRC Press.
Crocker, R., 2018. From ‘Spaceship Earth’to the circular economy: the problem of
consumption. In: Crocker, R., Saint, C., Chen, G., Tong, Y. (Eds.), Unmaking Waste in
Production and Consumption: towards the Circular Economy (13-33). Emerald
Publishing Limited.
Daly, H.E., 1974. The economics of the steady state. Am. Econ. Rev. 64 (2), 15–21.
Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., Soete, L. (Eds.), 1988. Technical Change
and Economic Theory. Columbia University Press.
Earle, T.K., 1997. How Chiefs Come to Power: the Political Economy in Prehistory.
Stanford University Press.
EMF - Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013. Towards the Circular Economy. Opportunities
for the Consumer Goods Sector. Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
Federico, G., 2008. Feeding the World: an Economic History of Agriculture, 1800-2000.
Princeton University Press.
Finley, M.I., 1999. The Ancient Economy, 1973. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Fogliatto, F.S., Da Silveira, G.J., Borenstein, D., 2012. The mass customization decade: an
updated review of the literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 138 (1), 14–25.
Gabriel, Y., Lang, T., 2015. The Unmanageable Consumer. Sage, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Gartman, D., 2013. Auto-opium: A Social History of American Automobile Design.
Routledge.
Goertz, G., 2006. Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide. Princeton University Press.
Goodwin, N.R., Ackerman, F., Kiron, D., 1997. The Consumer Society. Island Press.
Gregson, N., Crang, M., Fuller, S., Holmes, H., 2015. Interrogating the circular economy:
the moral economy of resource recovery in the EU. Econ. Soc. 44 (2), 218–243.
Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Lauk, C., Mayer, A., 2020. Spaceship earth’s
odyssey to a circular economy-a century long perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
163, 105076.
Haas, W., 2022. Circularity’s stumbling blocks: how stuttering implementation and
socio-metabolic root causes adversely interact. In: Lehmann, H., Hinske, C., de
Margerie, V., Nikolova, A.S. (Eds.), The Impossibilities of the Circular Economy.
Taylor & Francis, pp. 202–214.
Hansen, E.G., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Fichter, K., 2021. Circular Business Models: a Typology
Based on Actor Type, Circular Strategy and Service Degree, 4th PLATE 2021 Virtual
Conference-.
Hawkins, G., 2006. The Ethics of Waste: How We Relate to Rubbish. UNSW Press.
Henrysson, M., Nuur, C., 2021. The role of institutions in creating circular economy
pathways for regional development. J. Environ. Dev. 30 (2), 149–171.
Hershlag, Z.Y., 1980. Introduction to the Modern Economic History of the Middle East.
Brill Archive.
Hicks, A.L., 2018. Environmental Implications of consumer convenience: coffee as a case
study. J. Ind. Ecol. 22 (1), 79–91.
Jackson, T., 2005. Live better by consuming less?: is there a “double dividend” in
sustainable consumption? J. Ind. Ecol. 9 (1–2), 19–36.
Jones, R., 2016. Manure matters: historical, archaeological and ethnographic
perspectives. Routledge.
Jungell-Michelsson, J., Heikkurinen, P., 2022. Sufficiency: a systematic literature review.
Ecol. Econ. 195, 107380.
Kathan, W., Matzler, K., Veider, V., 2016. The sharing economy: your business model’s
friend or foe? Bus. Horiz. 59 (6), 663–672.
Kjaer, L.L., Pigosso, D.C., Niero, M., Bech, N.M., McAloone, T.C., 2019. Product/service-
systems for a circular economy: the route to decoupling economic growth from
resource consumption? J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (1), 22–35.
Lahti, T., Wincent, J., Parida, V., 2018. A definition and theoretical review of the circular
economy, value creation, and sustainable business models: where are we now and
where should research move in the future? Sustainability 10 (8), 2799.
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 390 (2023) 136138
Lane, R.E., 1990. The Market Experience. Cambridge University Press.
Lemire, B., Riello, G., 2008. East & West: textiles and fashion in early modern Europe.
J. Soc. Hist. 887–916.
Levinson, M., 2006. The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and
the World Economy Bigger. Princeton University Press.
Liebowitz, S.J., Margolis, S.E., 1995. ‘Path Dependence, Lock-In and History’, 11 Journal
of Law, Economics, and Organization, pp. 205–226.
Lorek, S., Fuchs, D., 2013. Strong sustainable consumption governance–precondition for
a degrowth path? J. Clean. Prod. 38, 36–43.
Lounsbury, M., 2005. Institutional variation in the evolution of social movements. Soc.
Movem. Organ. Theor. 73–95.
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Gold, S., Bocken, N.M., 2019. A review and typology of circular
economy business model patterns. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (1), 36–61.
Maddison, A., 2001. The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective. OECD, Paris.
Maycroft, N., 2009. Consumption, Planned Obsolescence and Waste. http://eprints.
lincoln.ac.uk/2062/1/Obsolescence.pdf.
McCarthy, A., Dellink, R., Bibas, R., 2018. The Macroeconomics of the Circular Economy
Transition. OECD Environment Working Papers No. 130. OECD, Paris. Available at:
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/paper/af983f9a-en?crawler=true&mimet
ype=application/pdf.
Megarry, T., 1995. Society in Prehistory: the Origins of Human Culture. New York
University Press.
Merli, R., Preziosi, M., Acampora, A., 2018. How do scholars approach the circular
economy? A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 178, 703–722.
Mies, A., Gold, S., 2021. Mapping the social dimension of the circular economy. J. Clean.
Prod. 321, 128960.
Mishra, J.L., Hopkinson, P.G., Tidridge, G., 2018. Value creation from circular economy-
led closed loop supply chains: a case study of fast-moving consumer goods. Prod.
Plann. Control 29 (6), 509–521.
Morana, J., 2018. Logistics. John Wiley & Sons.
Morseletto, P., 2020a. Targets for a circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 153,
104553.
Morseletto, P., 2020b. Restorative and regenerative: exploring the concepts in the
circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 24 (4), 763–773.
Morseletto, P., 2020c. A new framework for policy evaluation: targets, marine litter, Italy
and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Mar. Pol. 117, 103956.
Morseletto, P., 2022. Environmental principles for modern sustainable economic
frameworks including the circular economy. Sustain. Sci. 1–7.
Motz, M., 2016. Material culture and heritage. In: Burns, G. (Ed.), A Companion to
Popular Culture. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 184–201.
Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H.N.J., Schoormans, J.P.L., 2010. Product attachment and
satisfaction: understanding consumers’ post-purchase behavior. J. Consum. Market.
27 (3), 271–282.
Muthoo, M.K., 2003. The Concept of Renewable Resources. Perspectives in resource
management in developing countries. In: Thakur, B. (Ed.), Perspectives in Resource
Management in Developing Countries. Concept Publishing Company, pp. 61–77.
Nesterova, I., 2020. Degrowth business framework: implications for sustainable
development. J. Clean. Prod. 262, 121382.
Niero, M., Jensen, C.L., Fratini, C.F., Dorland, J., Jørgensen, M.S., Georg, S., 2021. Is life
cycle assessment enough to address unintended side effects from Circular Economy
initiatives? J. Ind. Ecol. 25 (5), 1111–1120.
Nußholz, J., 2017. Circular business models: defining a concept and framing an emerging
research field. Sustainability 9 (10), 1810.
Ockerman, H.W., Hansen, C.L., 1999. Animal By-Product Processing & Utilization. CRC
Press.
Ortega Alvarado, I.A., Pettersen, I.N., Berker, T., 2022. Contesting consumerism with a
circular economy? Circ. Econom. Sustain. 1–25.
Ottelin, J., Cetinay, H., Behrens, P., 2020. Rebound effects may jeopardize the resource
savings of circular consumption: evidence from household material footprints.
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (10), 104044.
Pearce, D., Markandya, A., 1987. Marginal opportunity cost as a planning concept in
natural resource management. Ann. Reg. Sci. 21 (3), 18–32.
Pierson, P., 2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. Am.
Polit. Sci. Rev. 94 (2), 251–267.
Priyadarshini, P., Abhilash, P.C., 2020. Fostering sustainable land restoration through
circular economy-governed transitions. Restor. Ecol. 28 (4), 719–723.
Polanyi, K., 2001. The Great Transformation, the Political and Economic Origins of Our
Time. Beacon Press.
Reike, D., Vermeulen, W.J., Witjes, S., 2022. Conceptualization of circular economy 3.0:
synthesizing the 10R hierarchy of value retention options. In: Towards a Circular
Economy. Springer, Cham, pp. 47–69.
Røpke, I., 1999. The dynamics of willingness to consume. Ecol. Econ. 28 (3), 399–420.
Rundh, B., 2013. Linking packaging to marketing: how packaging is influencing the
marketing strategy. Br. Food J. 115 (11), 1547–1563.
Sabel, C.F., Zeitlin, J. (Eds.), 2002. World of Possibilities: Flexibility and Mass Production
in Western Industrialization. Cambridge University Press.
Sarkis, J., Dewick, P., Cohen, M., Hofstetter, J., Schröder, P., 2022. Coordinating circular
& degrowth systems for strong sustainability. Cut. IT J. 35 (5), 28–31.
Schöggl, J.P., Stumpf, L., Baumgartner, R.J., 2020. The narrative of sustainability and
circular economy-A longitudinal review of two decades of research. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 163, 105073.
Schröder, P., Anggraeni, K., Weber, U., 2019. The relevance of circular economy
practices to the sustainable development goals. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (1), 77–95.
Schröder, P., Lemille, A., Desmond, P., 2020. Making the circular economy work for
human development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 156, 104686.
P. Morseletto
Schulz, J., 2007. Hyperconsumption/overconsumption. In: Ritzer, E. (Ed.), The Blackwell
Encyclopedia of Sociology, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.
wbeosh055.pub2.
Selvefors, A., Rexfelt, O., Renström, S., Strömberg, H., 2019. Use to use–A user
perspective on product circularity. J. Clean. Prod. 223, 1014–1028.
Schor, J.B., 2010. Plenitude: the Economics of True Wealth. Penguin.
Schor, J.B., Vallas, S.P., 2021. The sharing economy: rhetoric and reality. Annu. Rev.
Sociol. 47 (1), 369–389.
Sehnem, S., Vazquez-Brust, D., Pereira, S.C.F., Campos, L.M., 2019. Circular economy:
benefits, impacts and overlapping. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 24 (6), 784–804.
Siniawer, E.M., 2018. Waste: Consuming Postwar Japan. Cornell University Press.
Smil, V., 2013. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Wiley.
Stahel, W.R., 1982. The Product Life Factor. An Inquiry into the Nature of Sustainable
Societies: the Role of the Private Sector (Series: 1982 Mitchell Prize Papers). NARC.
Stobart, J., Van Damme, I. (Eds.), 2010. Modernity and the Second-Hand Trade:
European Consumption Cultures and Practices. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1700–1900.
View publication stats
Journal of Cleaner Production 390 (2023) 136138
Strasser, S., 1999. Waste and Want. Henry Holet.
Tura, N., Hanski, J., Ahola, T., Ståhle, M., Piiparinen, S., Valkokari, P., 2019. Unlocking
circular business: a framework of barriers and drivers. J. Clean. Prod. 212, 90–98.
Twede, D., 2002. Commercial amphoras: the earliest consumer packages?
J. Macromarketing 22 (1), 98–108.
Vivanco, D.F., Kemp, R., van der Voet, E., 2016. How to deal with the rebound effect? A
policy-oriented approach. Energy Pol. 94, 114–125.
Witt, U., 2001. Learning to consume–A theory of wants and the growth of demand.
J. Evol. Econ. 11 (1), 23–36.
Woldeyes, T.D., Muffatto, M., Ferrati, F., 2022. Emerging business models for circular
economy: a systematic literature review. In: Proceedings of the 17th European
Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, vol. 17. European Conference on
Innovation and Entrepreneurship, pp. 599–607. No. 1.
Wrigley, E.A., 1971/2017. The supply of raw materials in the industrial revolution. In:
Hartwell, M. (Ed.), The Causes of the Industrial Revolution in England. Routledge,
pp. 97–120.