Green Innovation and Circular Economy Models: Power, Inequalities and Organisational Change

Author: Ahmed Abd El Mutaleb

Affiliation: Independent Researcher

Abstract

Green innovation and circular economy (CE) models have emerged as defining pillars of sustainability-oriented transformation across industries and regions. Recent global disruptions—including supply chain volatility, rising energy costs, and the intensification of climate policy—have accelerated interest in designing waste-free systems, regenerative production cycles, and resource-efficient technologies. Circularity has transitioned from a specialised environmental issue to a fundamental element of industrial strategy, corporate governance, and public-sector planning.

This article offers a comprehensive theoretical and empirical analysis of green innovation and circular economy models through a sociological and interdisciplinary perspective, incorporating Bourdieu’s theory of capital, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism. It contends that CE transitions cannot be perceived merely as technological changes; they must be regarded as intricate socio-economic processes influenced by power dynamics, global disparities, legitimacy challenges, and organisational domains.

The article draws on recent academic debates, examples from manufacturing, textiles, construction, tourism, and digital industries, and trends in policy frameworks over the last five years—including legislative proposals on product durability, waste reduction, and sustainable design. Using a qualitative conceptual method, the analysis identifies four structural forces shaping the CE transition: unequal access to innovation resources, concentration of circular value creation in global “core” economies, regulatory pressures driving convergence, and symbolic competition surrounding sustainability claims.

The results show that CE models have the power to change things, but they also show that if transitions aren't managed in a way that includes everyone, they could make existing inequalities worse. The paper concludes with implications for policymakers, business leaders, and researchers, emphasising governance coherence, investment in green skills, and the importance of evaluating real material impacts rather than symbolic gestures.

1. Introduction

In the last ten years, the circular economy has become a key way for governments, businesses, and civil society groups to organise their work so that it is good for the environment as well as the economy. The fundamental principle of Circular Economy (CE) models is deceptively straightforward: economic systems must transition from linear processes of extraction, production, consumption, and disposal to methods that maintain materials, products, and biological resources in perpetual cycles of reuse, repair, remanufacturing, and regeneration.

Several global trends have made this change happen faster. First, climate-related impacts have become more common, putting political and economic pressure on industries to adopt more environmentally friendly practices. Second, problems in the supply chain, like a lack of semiconductors and rising prices for raw materials, have shown how weak resource-dependent industries are. Third, consumer awareness and policy attention have come together to make circularity a standard expectation instead of an optional way to innovate.

Today, CE models cover a wide range of fields. Companies in the textile industry are trying out fibre-to-fibre recycling and circular design. In electronics, manufacturers create phones that can be broken down into parts and devices that can be fixed. The construction industry uses recycled materials and designs things so that they can be taken apart easily. Tourism companies use regenerative frameworks that cut down on waste and help local ecosystems recover. More and more, agriculture and food systems use circular bioeconomy methods like composting, nutrient cycling, and regenerative farming.

But even though a lot of people are interested, the CE transition is not going smoothly or in a straight line. A lot of companies say that circularity is a strategic priority, but they have trouble turning this talk into real changes in how they do business. Others have structural problems—financial, technical, or institutional—that make it harder for them to adopt circular practices. In global value chains, circular activities like recycling or waste processing are often done in poorer areas, which keeps the gaps between rich and poor people growing.

This article examines the evolution of CE models within a context marked by power imbalances, regulatory constraints, global market hierarchies, and symbolic competition. Through a theoretically grounded analysis, it aims to elucidate the reasons behind the success of circular transitions in certain contexts, their stagnation in others, and the unintended consequences they produce within global systems.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Bourdieu: Capital, Fields, and the Politics of Circularity

Pierre Bourdieu’s framework of capital—economic, social, cultural, and symbolic—combined with the concept of organisational fields, offers a powerful approach for examining green transitions.

Economic capital shapes an organisation’s ability to invest in eco-design, advanced recycling technologies, circular logistics, or renewable energy. Large corporations with robust financial portfolios can pilot ambitious projects, while SMEs with thin margins may lack the capacity for experimentation.

Cultural capital, manifested in expert knowledge, professional competencies, and environmental literacy, determines whether organisations can interpret emerging sustainability standards, perform life-cycle assessments, or redesign supply chains. Firms embedded in strong innovation ecosystems accumulate cultural capital more readily.

Social capital—including alliances with regulators, universities, suppliers, NGOs, and innovation clusters—facilitates collaboration, information exchange, and joint problem-solving. Circular systems require cross-sectoral coordination; thus organisations with high social capital gain distinct advantages.

Symbolic capital reflects prestige, recognition, and legitimacy. In the age of sustainability, symbolic capital becomes a strategic asset: companies actively seek recognition through environmental certifications, circularity awards, or rankings that enhance brand value.

A Bourdieusian analysis shows that circular transitions operate within structured fields where actors compete for authority, influence, and legitimacy. The ability to perform as a “circular leader” is inseparable from accumulated capital. This explains why many CE pioneers are firms already advantaged by economic power, knowledge infrastructure, and networks—even before adopting circular innovations.

2.2 World-Systems Theory: Core, Semi-Periphery, and the Uneven Geography of Circularity

World-systems theory situates CE transitions within the broader dynamics of global capitalism, marked by structural inequalities between core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral regions.

Core economies—characterised by high technological capabilities, strong regulatory institutions, and advanced research ecosystems—tend to dominate high-value circular activities such as:

• eco-design and advanced materials engineering

• development of circular digital technologies

• high-quality recycling systems

• circular financial instruments

• sustainability-related consulting and knowledge services

Peripheral regions, by contrast, often become sites for:

• low-margin recycling

• informal waste processing

• resource extraction to feed industrial operations in the core

• late-stage product decomposition or disposal

This unequal distribution risks creating a “green division of labour,” where environmental benefits disproportionately accrue to core economies, while environmental burdens accumulate elsewhere.

A world-systems perspective also highlights the global political economy driving CE transitions. For instance:

• High-income regions may promote circularity to reduce dependence on imported resources.

• Circular innovation clusters in the core attract investment, while peripheral regions struggle with outdated infrastructure.

• Global corporations may redesign products for circularity but locate disassembly or waste processing in lower-income countries.

Thus, while CE models are often framed as universally beneficial, their implementation can deepen existing inequalities unless governance frameworks consciously address distributional dynamics.

2.3 Institutional Isomorphism: Convergence, Legitimacy, and Organisational Pressures

Institutional isomorphism—coercive, mimetic, and normative—helps explain why organisations across industries increasingly adopt CE language and strategies.

Coercive pressures include:

• new laws on product durability and reparability

• extended producer responsibility for electronics, textiles, and packaging

• mandatory sustainability reporting

• green public procurement criteria

Mimetic pressures arise as organisations imitate successful circular pioneers—such as companies known for modular electronics, reusable packaging systems, or remanufacturing excellence.

Normative pressures stem from:

• professional standards

• sustainability frameworks

• academic curricula

• consulting methodologies

• environmental certifications

While these pressures drive convergence, they also create risks. Firms may adopt circular terminology for legitimacy while making only minor operational changes—a phenomenon known as symbolic adoption or greenwashing. Institutional theory thus provides a lens to differentiate between genuine transformation and superficial alignment.

3. Method

This study employs a qualitative, conceptual methodology suitable for synthesising complex, interdisciplinary developments in CE transitions. The method consists of three components:

1. Structured literature review of academic research from 2018–2025, focusing on CE governance, green innovation, industrial sustainability, supply chain transformation, and socio-economic aspects of circular transitions.

2. Policy and regulatory analysis involving recent frameworks on product lifespan, waste reduction, sustainable materials, and circular industrial strategy.

3. Sectoral case mapping across manufacturing, textiles, construction, electronics, tourism, and digital industries to highlight the diversity of CE practices.

This approach does not aim for statistical generalisation but seeks conceptual depth, theoretical integration, and holistic interpretation of evolving circular practices.

4. Analysis

4.1 The Strategic Turn Toward Circularity in Business and Policy

Circularity has transitioned from environmental rhetoric to strategic imperative. Several factors underpin this shift:

• Resource cost volatility encourages firms to reduce dependence on virgin materials.

• Regulatory tightening in major economies introduces mandatory eco-design and waste-reduction requirements.

• Investor pressure pushes corporations to demonstrate long-term sustainability resilience.

• Consumer demand for durable, repairable, and ethical products strengthens market incentives.

Governments treat CE as a catalyst for green industrial competitiveness. Many national strategies emphasise job creation, innovation clusters, and support for circular start-ups. In practice, this has generated momentum in:

• renewable materials research

• advanced recycling technologies

• circular logistics platforms

• product-service systems

• digital twins and traceability solutions

A key insight from recent literature is that CE is no longer viewed simply as waste reduction; it is a systemic reconfiguration of production and consumption aligned with long-term ecological limits.

4.2 Sectoral Illustrations of Green Innovation and Circular Business Models

Manufacturing

Manufacturing industries integrate circularity through:

• eco-design for modularity and repair

• remanufacturing loops

• reverse logistics networks

• materials passports and digital tracking

These innovations improve resource efficiency while enhancing product functionality and lifespan. However, empirical studies show that adoption is uneven: firms with strong R&D capabilities and large capital reserves lead the transition, while smaller manufacturers struggle with investment capacity and skills shortages.

Electronics and Digital Technologies

The electronics sector is central to the CE debate due to rapid device obsolescence and hazardous waste streams. Circular innovation includes:

• repair-friendly designs

• long-life software support

• modular architecture

• certified refurbishment programmes

Digital technologies also support CE models through artificial intelligence, blockchain, and IoT systems that monitor material flows, optimise logistics, and enable predictive maintenance. The challenge, however, lies in balancing rapid innovation cycles with durability and reparability—two goals often in tension in competitive markets.

Textiles and Fashion

Circular fashion initiatives focus on:

• fibre-to-fibre recycling

• biodegradable materials

• repair and resale platforms

• zero-waste pattern cutting

Growing regulatory and consumer scrutiny intensifies pressure on brands to address excessive waste and overproduction. Yet the global nature of apparel supply chains makes circular integration complex, often shifting environmental burdens to lower-income production regions.

Construction and the Built Environment

Construction is one of the most resource-intensive sectors. Circular practices include:

• design-for-disassembly

• reuse of structural components

• low-carbon materials

• urban mining of demolition waste

Large infrastructure firms and public authorities increasingly require circularity criteria in tenders. Challenges remain in standardising materials, ensuring safety, and coordinating multiple stakeholders across long, fragmented value chains.

Tourism and Regeneration

Tourism adopts circular strategies through:

• waste-free hospitality operations

• regenerative tourism models

• circular destination planning

• community-based resource stewardship

Circular tourism links environmental management with cultural preservation and local economic resilience. Yet, resource-intensive mass tourism continues to dominate many markets, making widespread transformation slow.

4.3 Power, Capital, and Inequality in CE Transitions

A core contribution of this article is to demonstrate how CE transitions intertwine with social and economic inequalities.

Bourdieu’s perspective reveals three inequalities:

1. Financial inequality Firms with high economic capital dominate CE transformation because they can invest in long-term innovation, infrastructure, and talent.

2. Knowledge inequality Access to sustainability expertise, design capabilities, and environmental literacy is uneven across sectors and regions.

3. Symbolic inequality Organisations with strong public visibility can claim leadership in circular innovation even when their practices are modest, gaining reputational benefits disproportionate to their actual impact.

These inequalities challenge the narrative that CE automatically delivers social justice.

4.4 Global Supply Chains and the Circularity Paradox

World-systems theory exposes structural contradictions in global CE governance. Four paradoxes are prominent:

1. The outsourcing paradox High-income regions promote circularity while exporting waste to lower-income regions for processing, exacerbating environmental inequality.

2. The innovation paradox Advanced technologies for circularity are developed in the core but implemented in ways that rely on cheap labour or raw materials from the periphery.

3. The legitimacy paradox Corporations receive global recognition for circular strategies while neglecting socio-economic impacts within supply chains.

4. The extraction paradox Circularity is often presented as reducing resource extraction, yet demand for renewable technologies (e.g., batteries, semiconductors) increases extraction pressure in peripheral regions.

These paradoxes highlight that CE transitions without equity risk reinforcing, not alleviating, global inequalities.

4.5 Institutional Isomorphism and Symbolic Circularity

Regulations, professional norms, and competitive pressures encourage organisations to adopt CE language even when actual practices lag behind. Symbolic adoption emerges when:

• sustainability reports highlight circular ambitions without operational proof

• companies pilot small recycling programmes while maintaining linear production models

• firms emphasise certifications rather than material impact

• digital technologies improve traceability but not actual resource efficiency

Institutional isomorphism thus explains why CE narratives diffuse quickly, while material outcomes remain slow.

4.6 Conditions for Genuine Circular Transformation

The analysis identifies five conditions that enable real, not symbolic, circularity:

1. Integrated policy frameworks Fragmented regulations (waste, chemicals, trade, industrial policy) hinder coherent CE implementation. Alignment is crucial.

2. Infrastructure investment Circular logistics, repair networks, and advanced recycling require long-term public and private investment.

3. Industry–academy partnerships Skills development and knowledge transfer increase cultural capital across organisations.

4. Inclusive innovation ecosystems CE strategies must incorporate SMEs, local communities, and informal workers.

5. Transparent measurement Monitoring circularity outcomes—material recovery rates, durability indicators, repair frequencies—reduces greenwashing and symbolic adoption.

5. Findings

The extended analysis leads to four main findings:

Finding 1: Circular transitions are governed by unequal distributions of capital.

Organisations with strong financial, social, cultural, and symbolic capital lead CE innovation, shaping industry directions and influencing policy agendas. Without targeted support, smaller and less resourced actors risk marginalisation.

Finding 2: Global circularity is structurally uneven.

High-value circular activities are concentrated in core economies, while labour-intensive or environmentally burdensome tasks are often outsourced to peripheral regions. Without fair governance mechanisms, CE models risk perpetuating inequalities.

Finding 3: Institutional pressures accelerate circular diffusion but enable symbolic adoption.

Regulations, norms, and competitive pressures push firms toward circularity, yet many organisations adopt CE language symbolically without deep transformation. Clear metrics and accountability are needed.

Finding 4: Genuine circular transformation requires systemic governance and social inclusion.

Transformative circularity cannot be achieved through isolated technological solutions. It requires policy coherence, distributed innovation capacity, cross-sector collaboration, labour considerations, and social justice.

6. Conclusion

Green innovation and circular economy models are two of the most ambitious global efforts to redesign economic systems so that they fit within ecological limits. They offer ways to reduce waste, extend the life of products, restore ecosystems, and create new economic value through sustainable practices.

This article, on the other hand, shows that CE transitions are not just about technology or efficiency; they are also very much affected by power, capital, and global inequalities. Bourdieu's theories, world-systems theorists, and institutional scholars demonstrate the social forces that propel circular transformations. They show who gains, who is in charge, who is behind, and why.

For circularity to mean something, policymakers need to make sure that governance is consistent, invest in skills and infrastructure, and set up systems that stop burdens from being moved to weaker areas. Business leaders need to do more than just make empty promises. They need to make circularity a part of how they design products, manage their supply chains, and plan for the long term. Researchers should continue to investigate socio-technical interactions, equity concerns, and comparative CE models in diverse regions.

The circular economy's promise goes beyond just making sure that materials are used up. It also means changing the way people and businesses interact with each other to make them more fair, strong, and long-lasting. To make this happen, we need to think about the whole system, get everyone involved in making decisions, and be committed at all levels of society.

Hashtags

#GreenInnovation #CircularEconomy #SustainabilityTransition #EnvironmentalGovernance #InclusiveGrowth #IndustrialEvolution #GlobalSustainability

References (Harvard Style)

• Bourdieu, P. 1986. The Forms of Capital. In: Richardson, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press.

• Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.

• Murray, A., Skene, K. & Haynes, K. 2017. The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration. London: Routledge.

• Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A. & Seppälä, J. 2018. Circular Economy: The Concept and Its Limitations. London: Routledge.

• Colasante, A. & d’Adamo, I. 2023. Behavioural Drivers in Circular Economy Adoption: A Systematic Review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 35, pp. 812–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.01.007

• Geissdoerfer, M., Pieroni, M., Pigosso, D. & Soufani, K. 2020. Circular Business Models: A Review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 123741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123741

• Zhang, X., Yuan, Z. & Bi, J. 2022. Innovation Pathways for Circular Economy Transitions. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 182, 121847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121847

• Velenturf, A. & Purnell, P. 2021. Principles for a Sustainable Circular Economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, pp. 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.11.018

• Whalen, K., Milios, L. & Nussholz, J. 2018. Bridging the Gap: Barriers to Circular Business Model Innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, pp. 1081–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.223

• Ghisellini, P., Ulgiati, S. & Cialani, C. 2018. A Critical Review of Circular Economy Models. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 135, pp. 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.030

• Stahel, W.R. 2020. The Circular Economy: A User’s Guide. Nature Sustainability, 3(4), pp. 314–320. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0484-4

• Lüdeke-Freund, F., Gold, S. & Bocken, N. 2019. A Review of Business Model Innovation for Sustainable Technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, pp. 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.236

• Pieroni, M.P., McAloone, T.C. & Pigosso, D.C. 2021. Business Model Innovation for Circular Economy and Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, pp. 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.014

• Esposito, M., Tse, T. & Soufani, K. 2020. Circular Economy: Historical Roots, Contemporary Obstacles and Future Prospects. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 47(3), pp. 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-020-00162-7

• Hysa, E., Kruja, A., Rehman, N. & Laurenti, R. 2020. Circular Economy Innovation and Environmental Sustainability Impact on Firm Performance. Sustainability, 12(24), 10666. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410666

• Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. & Hekkert, M. 2017. Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 127, pp. 221–232.

• Schroeder, P., Anggraeni, K. & Weber, U. 2019. The Relevance of Circular Economy Practices to the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1), pp. 77–95.