What’s missing for us to go circular?

By Dr. Edson Grandisoli

Ecological footprint, carbon footprint, Earth Overshoot Day, water footprint… All these indicators have shown for decades that humanity has been persistently, systematically, and increasingly exceeding several planetary boundaries. The impacts affect people and the very ecosystem services we depend on—which, sooner or later, affects the viability of our own economic system.

If you’ve reflected on the paragraph above and associate it with the expression “shooting ourselves in the foot,” you’ve probably asked yourself: what are we waiting for? After all, we already have the research, information, and technologies needed to understand the urgency of the moment and act.

Considering the transition from a linear to a circular economy, for example, depends on understanding that the multiple processes and actors involved in extraction, production, consumption, and disposal systems must be aligned to ensure circularity. Think of a bicycle chain: if even one link is misaligned, it directly affects the final outcome for the rider.

Some of the core principles of the circular economy are already well established: eliminate waste and pollution from the design stage, keep products and materials in use for as long as possible, and regenerate natural systems.

Success cases are multiplying. Reuse technologies are advancing. Circular business models are gaining visibility. The conceptual and technical foundation is solid. Even so, the global economy remains predominantly linear. Extract, produce, consume, and discard continues to be the dominant logic. Circular initiatives are growing, but they still occupy marginal spaces compared to the total volume of production and consumption.

How can we bridge the gap between knowing and transforming?

Technical knowledge is a relevant driver. It guides practices such as ecodesign, reverse logistics, remanufacturing, reuse, and recycling. Much of the business sector is beginning to incorporate these principles—whether due to regulatory pressure, efficiency gains, or strategic positioning. Innovations are emerging in packaging, materials, and sharing platforms. Public policies are gaining traction in Brazil and worldwide, leveraging financing and innovation.

Once again, the answer does not lie in a lack of information, but in fragmentation, lack of coordination, and insufficient dialogue among the different processes and actors in this chain. By its very nature, the circular economy requires shared responsibility, which emerges from a deep reconfiguration toward new value chains, new business models, and new cultural patterns.

However, many vectors and processes within the chain remain anchored in linear logic, which hinders or delays circularity. For example:

• The economic model still favors large-scale production based on virgin resource extraction, often cheaper than material recovery;
• Global supply chains were structured for short-term cost efficiency, not circularity;
• Financial systems are largely oriented toward quick returns, making it harder to invest in models that require structural redesign and longer maturation;
• There are also significant cultural barriers. Consumption patterns still favor the new over the durable, repairable, or shared;
• Obsolescence—often planned or perceived—sustains accelerated purchasing cycles;
• The idea of ownership still prevails over the logic of use in many sectors.

The current result is a hybrid configuration. Elements of the circular economy are advancing, but they coexist with deeply linear structures, and the system’s dominant direction has changed very little.

This scenario highlights a central point: circularity is not established simply by introducing isolated practices. It requires alignment across multiple subsystems. Product design must connect with collection systems. Reverse logistics depends on infrastructure and regulation. Economic viability is linked to fiscal incentives, pricing of externalities, and market scale. Consumer behavior influences the entire chain. Without this alignment, circular initiatives tend to remain fragmented and ineffective.

There is also a strong dimension of systemic inertia. Industrial infrastructure, logistics chains, and distribution systems have been designed over decades to operate linearly. Changing this logic means redesigning material flows, contracts, business relationships, and even legal responsibilities. It is a transformation that redistributes costs, margins, and power among different actors.

Another relevant element is the asymmetry between costs and benefits. The benefits of the circular economy can be diffuse and often long-term, while transition costs tend to be immediate for specific companies or sectors. This creates resistance and slows convergence.

In addition, there is a governance and coordination challenge. Unlike isolated solutions, circularity depends on networks. A product only becomes truly circular if systems exist to enable its collection, reprocessing, and reintegration. This requires collaboration among companies that often operate competitively, as well as coordination between the public and private sectors—something that does not always occur smoothly.

Even when public policies are implemented, such as post-consumer responsibility regulations, their effectiveness depends on enforcement capacity and the engagement of all actors in the chain.

These challenges do not mean a lack of progress. On the contrary, there are clear signs of transformation underway. New models based on product-as-a-service are gaining traction. Sharing platforms are expanding. Traceability and advanced recycling technologies are evolving. Companies are beginning to redesign products for disassembly and reuse.

The question, however, remains: are these movements enough to change the dominant structure of the system? I would argue they are not.

In complex systems, structural changes occur when different drivers reach a level of convergence capable of shifting equilibrium. Until then, the system absorbs innovations without altering its core logic. In the case of the circular economy, we may be in a phase of accumulating initiatives, still without the critical mass needed to drive a true transition.

There is also the challenge of value perception. While the linear model externalizes environmental and social costs, circularity seeks to internalize them. This changes relative prices, business models, and consumption decisions. Without mechanisms to correct these distortions, circularity tends to compete at a disadvantage.

**This text was automatically translated with the help of artificial intelligence and reviewed. Still, there may be slight differences compared to the original version in Portuguese.