Circular Economy vs. Resilience Economy: Different semantics, different motivations, different ROI.

Most discussions of the circular economy revolve around the familiar “Re–” concepts: reuse, repair, repurpose, recycle. These ideas have been central to the field for decades – I explored them myself in my master’s thesis in 2012 – and they remain important. Their primary goal, however, is to extend product lifecycles, preserve resources, and reduce waste.

Not a great business model if you ask me; much more, these approaches align with the priorities of municipalities and citizens. Strengthening them often means strengthening local communities: hyper-local value chains, repair ecosystems, and, if these even create jobs then these jobs tend to be highly skilled and geographically rooted.

I agree that these strategies matter, yet they represent only a narrow slice of what the circular economy could become.

From a business perspective, “Re–” strategies rarely reshape the fundamentals of how value is created. I cannot imagine them to be able to pitch this to shareholders.  Understandably, really, because “re-“ strategies are often associated with de-growth narratives and which stakeholder wants de-growth scenarios to come true?

Semantically and strategically, I would prefer to separate the “Re-“ approaches from what we label the “circular economy” and instead group them under what I would call a Resilience Economy: a system focused on robustness, community stability, and resource preservation rather than industrial transformation and a field I have worked in for years.

Of course, this is not to say that businesses cannot participate. Companies like IKEA have demonstrated how consumer-facing circular initiatives can be monetized at scale. But in the age of AI, I would argue that this consumer-centric interpretation of circularity is not the most transformative – and may even distract from a far more powerful opportunity.

From “Re–” to “De–”: Closing the Material Loop

A very different perspective emerged for me during Vojtech Vosecky’s Circular Economist Masterclass, particularly through a lecture by Walter Stahel. Instead of focusing on “Re–”, he framed the circular economy around “De–” concepts: de-alloying, de-polymerising, de-linking, de-constructing.

This framing shifts the conversation fundamentally. InWalter Stahel’s words: “The era of ‘Re-” saves the owner’s money. It preserves value and extends the service of a product. It doesn’t contribute to the GDP.”

On the other hand, the circular industrial (!)economy becomes not a system for extending product life, but a system for closing material loops at an industrial level. Suddenly the narrative is not about doing “less harm.” It becomes about designing systems where materials retain value indefinitely and can re-enter production without degradation. The emphasis moves, so to say, upstream. It’s now more about material science, design, and industrial processes, rather than waste management and consumer behaviour. The concept of “De-” (linking) materials is about recovering pure atoms and molecules for reuse in industrial production cycles.

Are we talking compliance or innovation?

Another lecture in the masterclass, by Jacco Jochemsen from Current, introduced a critical but often overlooked dimension motivation.

When Current starts working with a client, the first question they ask is why. Why do they want to learn and work on circularity?

• Is the goal to develop an ESG strategy purely for compliance?

• Is it about reputational risk management?

• Or is it driven by a desire to innovate and differentiate?

Some companies aim to ensure long-term compliance. Others want to test fast, fail fast, and win big – using circularity as a lever to leapfrog competitors and potentially reshape their entire industry.

This distinction matters because when circularity is approached through the “De–” lens, it immediately demands innovation. It leads to questions about sourcing, strategic partnerships, R&D investment, and material experimentation. In other words, it becomes a growth strategy rather than a constraint.

Designing for disassembly and industrial self-sufficiency

In my ideal future, products would be designed for disassembly by default.

Mainstream brands would dedicate a fixed annual percentage of their portfolio to material innovation: alternatives such as PineTex, mushroom-based materials, or food-waste-derived leathers from companies like Uncaged Innovations. Circular infrastructure would not be an afterthought but a core operational asset.

At the same time, businesses would work toward greater self-sufficiency – reducing dependence on public infrastructure for energy, water, and material inputs. Simply as a strategy for resilience in an increasingly unpredictable world.

These ideas may sound ambitious. But ambition is precisely what the current technological moment enables.

The role of AI: Scaling circularity beyond pilots

The AI revolution offers a way to move circularity from isolated pilots to systemic change.

Imagine if every company contributed data on production remnants and by-products they cannot reuse internally to a shared, global database. Suddenly, waste becomes a searchable resource pool. Material circularity at scale becomes feasible, not theoretical.

Or consider sourcing. What if AI systems were routinely used to identify alternative materials – based on performance, availability, and environmental impact – allowing companies to transition away from virgin materials without sacrificing scale or margins?

Today’s sourcing practices persist largely because knowledge is locked inside organizations and passed down through generations. AI has the potential to decouple growth from virgin material extraction by externalizing and recombining that knowledge at unprecedented speed.

If that is not something to aspire to, it is hard to imagine what is.