The promotion of a Circular Economy (CE) has gained momentum over the past decade particularly among resource-intensive economies in the Global North in order to secure its access to minerals, to reduce dependency on resource-rich countries -mostly from the Global South- and to support their sustainability agenda.

Although there is not a single definition of CE, most approaches emphasize extending the life-cycle of products through measures such as reuse, remanufacturing and recycling as means of minimizing waste. Yet the concept usually remains rooted on business-as-usual approaches, following a paradigm of “sustainable” growth and market efficiency that focuses on technical solutions, efficiency gains and recycling over strategies to reduce absolute primary raw materials consumption. These approaches fail to acknowledge planetary boundaries and fall short in addressing the systemic change needed to tackle the multiple ecological crises and social inequality the world faces.

While metal recycling and efficiency measures are important, continued growth of the total production will also drive-up overall extraction and emissions, exacerbating the degradation of ecosystems and human rights violations associated with mineral value chains. Moreover, recycling of metals, such as metals gained from Li-ion batteries, to date tends to be energy and emissions intensive, and often requires using hazardous chemicals in the process.

Current CE approaches and implementation policies lack a comprehensive, global, and territorial perspective. Most of the knowledge and research on CE is produced in so-called developed countries in the Global North, which have the highest material footprints and largely shape dominant CE narratives and strategies. As a result, debates on CE tend to be disconnected from the resource base on which this economy depends, lacking a territorial perspective in its implementation strategies. CE is primarily associated with finished products at the end of their useful life and with recycling. However, this framing disregards the initial impact of mineral extraction and product manufacturing. It treats products as if they had no origin nor impacts, despite the huge negative environmental and social costs they have on the territories where the raw materials are extracted.

Moreover, CE is expected to generate jobs, (re-)industrialisation, value creation and economic growth, while the geographic distribution of investments and employment gains is mostly overlooked. Although some economic sectors are expected to grow and emerge, such as secondary material production, repair and remanufacturing, waste management and recycling activities, early adopting countries in the Global North might capture a disproportionate share of most benefits by exporting CE expertise and technology. CE initiatives led by developed economies risk harming workers and industries in countries where the extractive sectors are the basis for the economy. While slower production cycles, less consumption of natural resources especially in Global North countries are more than ever needed, they must be addressed with a holistic approach that leads to the wellbeing of societies and global wealth distribution.

CE can provide positive incentives if it is implemented with a comprehensive, global, equitable, and territorial perspective. This requires expanding the concept beyond the management of materials, recognizing its potential as a strategy for the structural transformation of North–South economic relations. Such a transformation should include the reduction of primary raw materials consumption especially in Global North countries, while respecting planetary boundaries and the needs of future generations. Unless these tensions are explicitly addressed, CE may become yet another mechanism for legitimizing and perpetuating the expansion of the extractive frontier in the Global South.