The path to a circular economy demands a more radical mindset. We must scrap the patchwork of waste regulations born out of a linear logic and begin speaking about circular business models and true resource efficiency, writes Marcus Wangel, Director of Environmental Policy.
We often talk about the need for a circular economy. That the materials we use must be circulated for longer periods. That resources are too valuable to be wasted. And that we must get better at using what we already have. Yet we are largely governed by rules built for another time, with another, linear, perspective.
The EU’s waste legislation is founded on two pillars: the Waste Directive, which sets out the overall hierarchy and principles for waste management, and the Waste Shipment Regulation, which governs cross-border transport of waste. Around these two, a myriad of sector-specific waste rules has emerged, bit by bit, over the years, everything from electronics and packaging to vehicles and ships.
Each regulatory framework was introduced to solve a specific problem at a particular point in time, always with good intentions. But together they resemble a patchwork quilt with seams that fray, making it hard for businesses who must comply, and for authorities who interpret and apply these laws, to see the whole. It does not help that most EU Member States have a plethora of their own national regulations in the waste area, which further fragments the market and creates obstacles for companies that want to scale up innovative solutions across borders.
“We are patching and repairing a regulatory system born out of a linear logic”
It is not as if nothing is happening, in fact, quite the opposite is. Targets are being revised and environmental ambitions are being raised, which in themselves are very positive. The Commission’s latest environmental omnibus package, which intends to reduce regulatory burden, is also a step in the right direction. But whether the changes are well-intentioned updates or politically attractive simplification packages, the result is the same: we are patching and repairing a regulatory system born out of a linear logic. And it is precisely that logic which means the legislation still sees waste as something to get rid of, rather than something to be utilised.
Here perhaps lies the heart of the problem. For decades, waste has been viewed as a final station, a problem to manage and minimise. Our legislation, our statistics and our control instruments are built on that perspective. Once something becomes “waste”, its value disappears, at least legally, even if it in reality might be a raw material or component of high value. Applying the “waste label” to something immediately places it in another realm of rules and restrictions. Sometimes that is necessary. But instead we often we create obstacles that make reuse and recycling more difficult.
This has created a kind of path dependency: policy development on the circular economy is constantly pulled back towards waste, even when the issue should really be about resource efficiency, innovative design, and new business models. The waste perspective may have become so dominant that it limits the political imagination and makes it harder to open up to new ways of thinking about resource flows.
What if we started again from scratch? An EU-wide system not centred on managing waste, but on preserving the value of materials and resources. Perhaps we would not even speak of waste, but of resources at different stages. Perhaps we might even dare to scrap large parts of the current European waste legislation and bring everything together in a single Resources Regulation – a coherent framework that follows materials throughout their entire lifecycle, with shared definitions and objectives. A system where companies no longer need to navigate different sets of rules depending on where in the lifecycle a product or material happens to be. And where supervisory authorities can work towards a clear overall mandate, instead of trying to coordinate and interpret laws pulling in different directions. Such a change would also create a stronger and more harmonised internal market, which in turn would strengthen companies’ ability to make long-term investments and roll out technical solutions across the EU.
Such a change would unleash innovation—not by imposing fewer detailed end-of-value-chain requirements, but through clear incentives at the start, in design and production. Companies could develop products that last longer, are easier to repair and can be disassembled for recycling into pure materials. This would pave the way for new business models and large-scale material flows that are not hindered by boundary lines and interpretation issues.
For business, this would mean that investments in circular processes and technologies become more profitable, and that European companies can stay ahead in developing solutions the world demands. A resources regulation could also pair strongly with the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), together creating a holistic framework that governs how products are designed and how materials move through the entire lifecycle.
“The European Commission is already working on a forthcoming Circular Economy Act. Perhaps it is right here, in the idea of a unified resources regulation, that that Act should find its direction”
Right now, there is an unusual opportunity to think bigger. We are in a time when the circular transition must scale up significantly if we are to meet climate goals and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness. At the same time, we live in a political reality where no EU legislation is safe from being revised or reconsidered. That provides a rare window to take a holistic approach and redraw the map. The Commission is already working on a coming Circular Economy Act. Perhaps it is here, in the idea of a single resources regulation, that this Act should find its direction.
Implementing such a change would be radical. Much of what we have built over decades would be replaced by something new. We would need to move away from entrenched concepts and ways of thinking. But perhaps it is precisely for that reason that we need to dare to consider it. How long can we keep adjusting a system that perhaps will never be able to handle the circular resource flows of the future? How long can we speak of circular economy when the legal framework still carries a linear logic in its DNA?
The circular transition requires more than raised targets and new paragraphs. It demands that we ask ourselves the most fundamental question: what is it we are really trying to achieve? If the answer is to preserve the value of our resources for as long as possible, then that is where we must begin. The rest is just tinkering on a map that no longer corresponds to reality. And maps that don’t correspond to reality rarely lead us where we want to go.
Environment