By: Professor Dato Dr Ahmad Ibrahim
We’ve all seen the images: mountains of plastic waste, overflowing landfills, turtles entangled in debris. In response, a comforting narrative has taken hold: “Recycle more, save the planet.” While well-intentioned, this narrow focus dangerously misrepresents a far more profound and necessary transformation – the true essence of the circular economy. Mistaking circularity for just sophisticated waste management is like believing a heart transplant is merely about stitching skin; it fundamentally misses the systemic revolution required.
The misunderstanding is pervasive. Too often, discussions about the circular economy begin and end with recycling rates, improved collection schemes, or turning plastic bottles into fleece jackets. While recycling plays a part, it is merely the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The core aim of a circular economy is not to manage waste better, but to eliminate the concept of “waste” altogether by radically rethinking how we design, produce, use, and reuse resources.
Why then the confusion? Recycling is tangible. We interact with bins and collection trucks. It feels like action. The deeper, systemic shift demanded by circularity is about redesigning products for longevity, modularity, and easy disassembly; shifting business models from ownership to service (leasing, sharing, repairing); regenerating natural systems; and fundamentally decoupling economic activity from the voracious consumption of virgin resources. This is less visible, more complex, and challenges deeply ingrained linear habits.
This misunderstanding matters profoundly because it allows the root cause of our environmental crises to persist: the relentless “take-make-dispose” linear economy. This system devours finite resources. It treats the planet as an infinite mine and an infinite dump. It generates massive waste and pollution. Products are designed for obsolescence, not longevity or recovery. Landfills and incinerators are the default endpoints, leaching toxins and emitting greenhouse gases.
The system is a primary driver of climate change. Extracting raw materials, manufacturing from scratch, and managing waste streams are overwhelmingly energy-intensive processes, heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Experts estimate that material extraction and processing account for over 50% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 90% of biodiversity loss and water stress.
Circularity is about designing out the problem. A genuine circular economy tackles this linear system at its source. Products are conceived from the outset for multiple lifecycles. They are durable, repairable, upgradable, and ultimately easily disassembled. Materials are chosen for safety and infinite recyclability or composability. Think modular phones, carpets designed for easy fibre recovery, or engines built for remanufacturing. Keeping products and materials long in use is the heart. It prioritizes maintenance and repair. Making fixing things easier and cheaper than replacing them. Also reuse and refurbishment by extending product life through resale markets and professional refurbishment. Remanufacturing is a priority. This is about restoring used products to “as-new” condition.
Only after all these loops are exhausted does recycling come in, and it must be true recycling back into high-value applications, not downcycling. For example, regenerate natural systems by returning biological nutrients (like compost) safely to the soil to restore ecosystems, moving beyond merely reducing harm towards active restoration. We need to rethink the business models. Companies generate value through services (lighting as a service, leasing appliances) rather than just pushing volume. This incentivizes them to make durable, efficient, recoverable products.
The carbon imperative is next. This systemic shift isn’t just about tidiness; it’s a critical climate strategy. Keeping resources circulating drastically reduces the need for carbon-intensive extraction, primary processing, and virgin material production. Remanufacturing a car engine, for example, uses a fraction of the energy and emits a fraction of the CO2 compared to making a new one from scratch. Extending the lifespan of a smartphone through repair and refurbishment avoids the immense embedded carbon of manufacturing its replacement. Designing buildings for disassembly and material reuse slashes the emissions from demolition and new construction. It’s time to elevate the conversation. Promoting recycling alone is like bailing water from a sinking ship without plugging the hole.
We need a policy that incentivizes design. One that offers tax breaks for repairable products, standards for durability and recyclability, and extended producer responsibility that rewards circular design. Investment in innovation is crucial. We must support R&D in new materials, modular design, reverse logistics, and advanced recycling technologies that preserve material quality. Next is consumer empowerment. The “Right to Repair” laws, accessible repair networks, and education to value longevity over disposability must be put in place.
The circular economy is not a glorified waste management plan. It is a fundamental redesign of our industrial metabolism, a shift from a degenerative linear system to a regenerative, restorative, and ultimately resilient model. It’s about designing a future where resources retain their value, waste is designed out, and economic prosperity is decoupled from environmental destruction. Our planet’s future – and our ability to combat climate change – depends on it.
The author is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an associate fellow at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya.