A Circular State of Mind

By Harper Edhels
November 2020

In the last couple of decades, the term ‘circularity’ has been bandied around by policymakers, environmentalists and economists, using its principles to call for change in the way we produce and consume. Though its proposals are relatively approachable when you take a closer look, it seems many find the concept difficult to grasp; in fact, a poll by Shelton GRP found that the term ‘circularity’ ranked among the lowest of all sustainability terms that the general public is familiar with.

The Ellen Macarthur Foundation, whose mission statement is to ‘accelerate the transition to a circular economy’, has bridged the gap between consumers and sustainability experts somewhat, laying out a coherent framework for circularity that has appealed to a far wider audience than before. In fact, in June 2020 they achieved a landmark victory as 50 global leaders signed a pledge to build back better after the pandemic through a focus on the circular economy.

But outside the realm of ministers and presidents, why is it that the average consumer recoils from the term, and how can we bring this buzzword out of the vocab of technocrats and sustainability experts and into everyday life? The solution lies not solely with environmentalism, but with a collective psychological shift.

Circularity: it’s a state of mind

The circular economy sits in opposition to the linear economy that we currently operate within. In the linear economy, we make something, we use it, and we dispose of it, with waste an inherent byproduct of the system and resources increasingly depleted. The focus is on the utility of the product in the here and now and what we can gain from its production.

Circularity, in contrast, moves away from the consumption of finite resources and instead aims to ‘design waste out of the system’, replacing linearity with a regenerative model that recovers materials at the end of a product’s life and enters them back into the system.

The concept is not just an environmental initiative, but a school of thought that creates a collective moral duty to take ownership for a product at each stage of its lifecycle. No longer is it enough as a community to produce a plastic cup, use it and dispose of it; the circular model requires us to consider the materials that went into a product, what will happen to it after it is disposed of, where the materials that compose it will end up, and foresee countless lifecycles as those materials are regenerated into the system.

As such, an individual can no longer be a passive bystander and consumer in a linear world; she must be a spoke in a wheel that is necessary to keep it turning. And by moving from passivity to activity through engagement with the system in which she operates, the individual assumes responsibility for her actions and becomes an active participant in the circular economy.

Seeking the good life

The suggestion that we must actively turn our minds to such responsibilities is nothing new. As early as 2,500 years ago, Aristotle coined the idea of ‘the good life’, which posited that in order to achieve true satisfaction in life, we should take responsibility for our own actions. He claimed that the way to live ‘the good life’ was to ensure good moral character, or ‘complete virtue’ - and to do so, one could not be passive, but must actively seek virtue.

Purposeful action, in other words acting with an end or goal in mind, combined with virtuous action, balancing in the middle of two excesses, would lead to satisfaction according to Aristotle. The active engagement with our natural environment and consideration of the lifecycle of resources lends itself to such purposeful virtue and thus: a good life.

There are numerous schools of thought relating to circularity that feed into the concept. Janine Benyus’ concept of ‘biomimicry’ proposes ‘innovation inspired by nature’, where nature is at once our model, our measure and our mentor. Biomimicry asks us to use nature’s lessons to solve human problems, measure the sustainability of our actions, and guide us, revisioning nature as not a limited material but an infinitely renewable resource of knowledge which we actively engage with. Another approach is the Cradle to Cradle model, where products are designed with the aim that at the end of their life, component materials can either be recycled or returned to the earth, imitating nature’s cycle.

What the various circularity models have in common is symbiotic engagement with the natural environment and consideration of its resources and processes. This stands in opposition to heedless production and consumption for temporary gain.

The linear economy has to change; to achieve that change, we need a shift in mentality and a reconnection with the system that sustains us. Otherwise, it will no longer continue to do so.

Return to People and Planet.

You may also be interested in: RIP GDP – Why we need a new metric of progress in a warming world