European Union flag

This briefing shows how integrating justice into circular economy policies strengthens environmental and social outcomes. It draws on three reports from the European Topic Centre on Circular Economy and Resource Use on a just circular economy; on operational frameworks and indicators; and on jobs, skills, and workforce inclusion.

Key messages

Circular economy policies are most effective when fairness, inclusion and broad participation are integrated throughout their design and implementation. These elements strengthen social cohesion, economic resilience and public trust, creating the conditions for effective implementation and the delivery of environmental benefits.

A successful sustainability transition does not automatically produce fair social outcomes. To avoid exacerbating existing inequalities, policymakers must deliberately embed justice into every stage of the policy process—from design and implementation to monitoring and evaluation. This requires moving beyond a purely environmental or economic focus to give equal weight to social objectives.

Between 2014 and 2023, the number of jobs linked to the circular economy in the EU-27 grew by 10% to around 4.4 million. While the circular economy creates new jobs, some are low-paid or insecure, and higher-skilled roles often benefit already advantaged groups, highlighting the need to improve job quality, strengthen skills development and ensure more inclusive access to opportunities.

Recognising, supporting, and meaningfully engaging small and medium enterprises (SMEs), as well as informal and community-based actors — such as informal waste collectors and grassroots repair networks — can strengthen the circular transition. Valuing these diverse contributions helps improve working conditions, promote fairer outcomes, enhance monitoring, and ensure that local knowledge and practices are respected and integrated.

Justice challenges and policy levers vary across sectors and value chains. Focusing on justice in specific sectors and value chains allows policymakers to act more precisely, addressing key challenges such as job quality, skills requirements, health and safety risks, transparency of data, and the fair distribution of benefits and burdens.

Justice mechanisms supporting effective sustainability transitions

The competitiveness compass and the Clean Industrial Deal provide the building blocks and strategic foundation for decarbonising Europe’s economy and accelerating the transition to low-carbon, circular and competitive technologies. Together, they aim to strengthen Europe’s industrial base while supporting quality jobs and the skills needed for a successful transition.

The Eighth Environment Action Programme reiterates the long-term European Union (EU) vision of living well within planetary boundaries. It recognises that prosperity and human well-being depend on healthy ecosystems.

Efforts to ‘leave no one behind’ and ensure that clean transitions are just and fair are reflected in instruments such as the Just Transition Fund, the Social Climate Fund and the EU Solidarity Fund. In 2022, the European Council adopted a recommendation on ensuring a fair transition towards climate neutrality. This provides Member States with guiding principles for just sustainability transitions.

Meanwhile, EU policy efforts on decarbonisation are anchored in the European Climate Law. This sets the legally binding target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

In this context, sustainability transitions are defined as the processes involved in bringing about long-term structural change towards more sustainable systems of production and consumption — for energy, transport, food and the built environment. They require profound and large-scale changes in ways of doing, thinking about and organising the EU’s economies and societies, as well as in underlying institutions and values (EEA, 2024c).

To support this ambition over time, sustainability transitions need to foster well-being for both humans and non-human species, while respecting ecological boundaries and addressing existing injustices linked to climate change and environmental degradation (EEA, 2024a).

Key considerations for a just transition

For sustainability transitions to succeed, policymakers need to monitor and anticipate the potentially unequal effects of sustainability policies, ensuring that they do not create new inequalities or exacerbate existing ones (EEA, 2024b, 2024a)

Among the ideas and concepts gaining momentum is that of just transition, which emphasises the importance of integrating social needs and considerations into all stages of the policy process. The concept includes designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating policies in terms of how they promote sustainability transitions. While other aspects of justice (e.g. intersectionality, capabilities, intergenerational justice, restorative justice and temporality) can be relevant, three key dimensions have been identified to inform the understanding of sustainability transitions (EEA, 2024c):

  • Distributional justice: this focuses on how the costs and benefits of human activities, as well as of policies to manage these activities, are allocated across our society and to other species in the natural environment.
  • Procedural justice: this is concerned with who participates meaningfully in and benefits from decision-making processes and why (including how inclusive and transparent participation is defined and delivered).
  • Recognitional justice: this recognises underlying systemic injustices and supports the dignity, values and identities of humans, as well as of nature, regardless of the utility to humans.

Together, these dimensions provide a foundation for embedding justice into sustainability transitions.

A circular economy as a key enabler for sustainable production and consumption

The circular economy transition is a key enabler for addressing the triple planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. It represents a systemic shift away from linear production and consumption models towards maximising resource efficiency and circularity across the entire life cycle of products. The concept includes:

  • eco-design;
  • extending product lifetimes through reuse, repair and remanufacturing;
  • ensuring high-quality recycling so that materials can be returned safely and efficiently to the economy after use (EEA, 2024b).

In response to unsustainable raw material use and growing strategic dependencies, the EU has embedded the circular economy transition at the core of its policy framework. Most recently, the Clean Industrial Deal has reaffirmed the circular economy as a driver of competitiveness, resilience and security. The upcoming Circular Economy Act is expected to further accelerate this transition and strengthen Europe’s economic security.

However, positive social outcomes do not come about automatically as a result of circular economy policies. The concept of just transition must be actively pursued through well-designed transition processes (ETC CE, 2025).

Historically, circular economy strategies have focused primarily on environmental and economic performance, while the social implications have received more limited attention. It is only recently that there has been a move to address social justice considerations more systematically in the circular transition (ETC CE, 2025, 2026b).

To support a fair and effective transition, this briefing builds on an expanded understanding of the circular economy that explicitly incorporates the concept of just transition. Figure 1 presents a conceptual model for a just circular economy, in which economic, environmental and social objectives are given equal weight. It highlights how distributional, procedural and recognitional justice considerations can be addressed across value chains, supported by cross-cutting governance and monitoring mechanisms.

Integrating these dimensions can help ensure that the circular transition delivers environmental benefits while also strengthening social cohesion, economic resilience and public trust.

Figure 1. Conceptual approach towards a just circular economy

Please select a resource that has a preview image available.

Justice considerations for different social groups in the circular economy transition

This section analyses circular economy considerations in relation to different social groups, according to the stakeholder categories defined in the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organisations (UNEP, 2020): workers, local communities, society, consumers and value-chain partners.

Analysing justice considerations for these social groups allows for a better understanding of what strategies are necessary to ensure that their perspectives are taken into consideration. It also helps point to methods for monitoring the impacts of policy and actions on these groups (ETC CE, 2026b).

Workers: towards decent work for all in a circular transition

Workers in a just circular transition should benefit from emerging employment opportunities that provide fair wages, safe working conditions, access to training, and representation and recognition in transition processes (ETC CE, 2026b).

Between 2014 and 2023, the number of jobs linked to the circular economy in the EU-27 grew by 10% to around 4.4 million (Eurostat, 2025). The EU’s Clean Industrial Deal estimates that Europe’s remanufacturing market has the potential to grow from its current value of EUR 31 billion to EUR 100 billion by 2030 and to create 500,000 new jobs (EC, 2025).

A new baseline reveals that 121-142 million people are employed in the circular economy globally. This corresponds to 5-5.8% of total employment worldwide, excluding employment in agriculture. Women constitute 26% of the circular employment workforce (Circle Economy, ILO & World Bank Group, 2025).

Looking ahead, it is anticipated that some labour-intensive sectors — such as services related to repair, sharing and leasing, as well as waste management activities like preparation for reuse — may see job growth, while jobs in manufacturing sectors may decline (ETC CE, 2026a).

In globalised value chains, job gains in one region may coincide with losses in another. In the apparel industry, for example, EU circular economy policies could create jobs related to reuse, repair and recycling in the EU but displace production jobs in countries such as Bangladesh, Cambodia and India (ETC CE, 2026a).    

High-quality circular jobs, particularly in management, design and innovation, often demand advanced qualifications. In contrast, circular jobs in waste collection, sorting and repair require manual skills and few formal qualifications. This raises concerns about job quality and long-term career prospects. Hence, alongside net employment effects, close attention must be paid to reskilling and upskilling trajectories to ensure inclusive participation in the circular transition (ETC CE, 2026a).

Box 1. Distribution of circular economy jobs across EU Member States

Opportunities for circular employment vary between EU Member States. Map 1 shows that the Baltic region has the highest share of circular employment opportunities. Up to 7.9% of all jobs in Estonia are in the circular economy, followed by Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Luxembourg with shares of 3.6-4.2%. Meanwhile Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, and the Netherlands have lower shares (less than 1.5%).

Because labour intensity varies across economic activities, the level of circular economy activity in EU Member States does not always translate into equivalent employment growth. This is further discussed in the ETC CE report on monitoring jobs, skills and workforce inclusion (ETC CE, 2026a).

Map 1. Relative share of circular jobs in total employment by EU Member State, 2023

More info

Job quality is an important aspect of distributional justice in relation to employment in the circular transition. Studies show that in sectors such as waste management, electronics repair and textile reuse there are risks of low pay, limited protection and irregular hours, particularly for informal workers, migrants and women (CISL, 2023; Deutz et al., 2024).

Looking beyond the figures for the total number of circular jobs allows other critical dimensions to be considered; these include working conditions, social protection, working hours and wages, which vary widely across circular activities (ETC CE, 2026a). 

Consideration of procedural justice highlights the importance of including workers and communities in decision-making processes related to circular employment. Designing policy frameworks for labour market reforms from the bottom up, and not simply from the top down, also mitigates the risk of overlooking local knowledge and the lived experiences of workers (Clube, 2022; Multani and Bachus, 2024).

Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs) are a good example of this kind of bottom-up approach; they are used to co-develop work processes with circular start-ups (Van Opstal and Borms, 2024).

Consideration of recognitional justice enables the full range of circularity contributions to be acknowledged, including those of informal, unpaid and marginalised workers. Although they are often not officially defined as circular employment, activities such as community repair and self-organised reuse initiatives play a crucial role in slowing material flows and fostering circularity values (Multani and Bachus, 2024; Van Opstal et al., 2025).

Box 2 elaborates on the scale of informal work in the circular economy and the job roles and risks specifically associated with it.

Box 2. The informal circular economy: a dimension that is often overlooked

A substantial share of circular economy activity takes place in the informal sector; however, this is not fully captured in policy and data. Globally, of the estimated 121-142 million people working in the circular economy, more than half are informal workers (Circle Economy, ILO & World Bank Group, 2025).

In low-income countries, informal work is often small scale, unregulated and labour-intensive (Wilson et al., 2006). Informal circular economy work in these countries tends to originate from economic necessity (Korsunova et al., 2022). It is often characterised by conditions such as unsafe labour environments, gender inequality and a lack of social protection and health coverage (Cook et al., 2024). At the same time, informal circular activities provide livelihoods and environmental benefits by diverting waste from landfills and marine ecosystems (ETC CE, 2026a).

In contrast, activities like scrap-metal collection, retrieving discarded textiles from residential areas or exploiting bottle deposit systems are examples of the informal circular economy in high-income countries. This kind of activity is often undertaken by migrants and people from ethnic minorities (Cook et al., 2024; ETC CE, 2026a). Grassroots efforts such as repair cafés, community workshops and makerspaces are examples of other informal circular activities that are often not fully recognised for their circularity contributions (Van Opstal et al., 2025).

Labour market vulnerabilities repeatedly intersect in complex ways. Women’s care-based services, informal recycling undertaken by migrants and community work by elder volunteers often fall outside what counts as ‘employment’ or ‘innovation’. The tendency of circular economy developments to mirror existing inequalities across gender, age, ethnicity and disability underscores the importance of intersectional approaches (ETC CE, 2026a).

Local communities: key enablers of a just circular transition

Safeguarding rights and equity for local communities, Indigenous Peoples and other marginalised groups strengthens the circular transition (ETC CE, 2026b).


Distributional justice is enhanced when circular economy activities safeguard equitable access to resources, protect communities from displacement and ensure that any potential health and environmental risks are addressed through fair compensation and mitigation measures (ETC CE, 2026b).  

Procedural justice is strengthened when communities — especially those in rural, informal or disadvantaged settings — are actively engaged in decision-making, monitoring or planning processes (ETC CE, 2026b).  

Recognitional justice is strengthened when community values, traditional practices (e.g. traditional craft or repair skills) and cultural identities are respected and meaningfully integrated into mainstream circular economy narratives and initiatives (ETC CE, 2026b).

Table 1 synthesises three illustrative examples of key justice hotspots across UNEP impact categories affecting local communities. A full overview is provided in the (ETC CE, 2026b) on operational frameworks and indicators.

Table 1. Examples of impact considerations for local communities in a just circular transition

Impact domain

Distributional justice

Procedural justice

Recognitional justice

Access to material resources

Construction of circular economy (CE) facilities (e.g. recycling centres) does not hinder local access to resources (land, water).

Local communities are consulted on circular infrastructure decisions.

Traditional land use or resource rights are not ignored in favour of technocratic planning.

Access to immaterial resources

Rural, informal or low-income communities are included in CE training.

Communities are included in shaping locally adapted CE knowledge programmes.

Cultural values and local knowledge (e.g. traditional craft skills) are valued.

Indigenous rights

CE activities do not infringe on Indigenous territories or customary rights.

Indigenous Peoples are included in CE governance or consultations.

Indigenous worldviews and relational values are included in dominant CE logic.

Society: ensuring justice in a circular society

Here, society is defined as the broader public and societal institutions indirectly affected by organisational activities across value chains (ETC CE, 2026b).

Circular transitions must democratise benefits, participation and knowledge, ensuring that all societal actors, including marginalised communities and grassroots initiatives, are recognised and included (ETC CE, 2026b).

Distributional justice is promoted when the benefits of circular transitions — such as funding or access to innovation — are shared equitably across institutions and regions, ensuring that no stakeholders are disproportionately burdened or left behind. This approach is necessary to respond to the challenges faced by smaller municipalities, which often lack fiscal and administrative capacity, including staff time and technical expertise, for project design, co-financing and reporting (ETC CE, 2026b).

Procedural justice is strengthened when societal actors are meaningfully involved in circular policy and innovation processes (ETC CE, 2026b). For example, Purvis et al. (2025) discuss civil society repair groups which possess technical and social knowledge that is shared on a volunteer-to-visitor basis and can enrich policy design when actively included.

Recognitional justice is promoted when non-mainstream knowledge systems, grassroots practices and community-based contributions are fully valued and integrated into sustainability narratives. For example, civil society efforts — such as repair cafés or reuse networks — are often absent from national reporting frameworks and taken for granted instead of being recognised as valid expressions of a public commitment to sustainability (Van Opstal et al., 2025).

Table 2. Examples of impact considerations for society in a just circular transition

Impact domain

Distributional justice

Procedural justice

Recognitional justice

Public commitments to sustainability

Benefits from sustainability commitments are shared equitably, including with marginalised groups and affected communities.

Inclusive deliberative mechanisms ensure affected communities participate in target-setting, monitoring and accountability processes.

Diverse values (e.g. reciprocity, local engagement) and civil society contributions (e.g. repair cafés) are recognised and valued.

Economic development

CE investments support balanced regional development, including across low-income and rural areas, ensuring equal access to opportunities.

Economic priorities are shaped through participatory planning, including informal, small-scale and community-based actors.

Community-based enterprises, informal contributions and non-monetary value creation are acknowledged and reflected in indicators and assessments.

Technology and knowledge transfer

Access to circular innovation is equitable, with benefits and risks shared fairly across regions and social groups.

Innovation processes are transparent and participatory, valuing local and community knowledge alongside technical expertise.

In a context where Western approaches to knowledge creation tend to be prioritised, Indigenous ecologies and local and grassroots knowledge are valued alongside scientific approaches.

Consumers: active participants in a just circular economy

In a just circular transition, consumers are not merely end users, but active participants whose rights, expectations and vulnerabilities must be addressed. For them, justice concerns emerge not only in relation to access and affordability, but also in terms of how circular systems are designed, governed and communicated.

Equity, affordability and transparency empower consumers to participate fully in a just circular economy (ETC CE, 2026b).

Distributional justice is strengthened when low-income consumers and consumers with limited digital access or skills are supported with accessible information, safe products and equitable opportunities for participation in circular systems. For example, low-income consumers often rely more on reused or remanufactured goods (e.g. electronics, textiles and household appliances) (ETC CE, 2026b). Robust testing, quality controls and chemical oversight in secondary markets can ensure reduced exposure and less likelihood of health and safety risks for consumers who rely more on these goods (Liu, 2025).

Procedural justice is strengthened when consumers have meaningful opportunities to influence circular product and service design, safety standards or data governance (ETC CE, 2026b). For example, users are often unaware of how their repair data, consumption patterns or geo-location are used by circular service providers (Hoyng, 2023).

Recognitional justice is advanced when consumer contributions to circularity (e.g. through reuse or repair) are fully acknowledged and when the needs of marginalised users are proactively reflected in policies and metrics (ETC CE, 2026b).

Table 3. Examples of impact considerations for consumers in a just circular transition

Impact domain

Distributional justice

Procedural justice

Recognitional justice

Consumer health and safety

Safety standards and quality controls for reused and remanufactured goods protect low-income consumers and reduce unequal exposure to health and safety risks.

Consumers, including vulnerable groups, are involved in setting safety standards for second-hand and repaired goods.

Safety risks for vulnerable users (e.g. children, older adults) are recognised in CE policy.

Transparency

All consumers — not just those who are affluent and digitally literate — have access to product information.

Certification schemes are shaped not only by dominant actors; small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can exert greater influence.

Transparency is framed not only as a technical fix but to improve market structure; power asymmetries in information governance are recognised (e.g. impacts on price and quality)

End-of-life responsibility

Take-back systems become more accessible, including to rural and low-income users; burdens of disposal are evenly distributed.

Consumers are more involved in shaping collection or reuse and recycling infrastructure.

Informal and second-hand consumer practices are considered in CE indicators; stigma around reuse is overcome.

Value-chain partners: enabling justice across circular value chains

Value-chain partners — such as suppliers, manufacturers and logistics providers — play an essential role in enabling and sustaining circular business models.

A just circular economy requires fair access, inclusive decision-making and recognition of all value-chain partners, including SMEs, informal actors and non-mainstream innovators (ETC CE, 2026b).

Distributional justice is advanced when SMEs, stakeholders from low-income countries and informal partners have fair access to, for example, funding, technology or market opportunities (ETC CE, 2026b), National strategies, such as Germany’s national circular economy strategy, promote multi-stakeholder partnerships to broaden market participation and help close technology gaps (German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection, 2024).

Procedural justice is strengthened when standards, certifications and supplier relationships are developed through inclusive, collaborative processes that involve smaller or non-mainstream actors (ETC CE, 2026b).

Recognitional justice is promoted when alternative economic models, informal actors and non-Western knowledge systems are valued alongside or instead of efficiency-driven, compliance-oriented frameworks (ETC CE, 2026b). Ongoing debates negotiating the Global Plastics Treaty underscore the importance of this approach, as advocates continue to call for fairer labour standards and meaningful inclusion of informal waste workers in global policy frameworks (O’Hare and Nøklebye, 2024).

Table 4. Examples of impact considerations for value-chain partners in a just circular transition

Impact domain

Distributional justice

Procedural justice

Recognitional justice

Fair competition

Support is available for SMEs and informal actors who face funding, procurement and market-access barriers.

Informal and community-based actors are included in the design of competitiveness policy.

Alternative models are not dismissed; social enterprise bids are not dismissed because lowest-cost procurement logic is prevailing.

Justice in supplier relationships

Small suppliers are supported adequately with CE obligations and compliance costs.

Decision-making is no longer concentrated in large firms; co-development with smaller or regional partners is supported.

Supplier contributions are valued; less favour is shown to models based solely on scale, brand prestige or technology orientation.

Intellectual property (IP) rights

SMEs and informal repair and reuse are no longer blocked by restrictive IP protections.

Patent regimes do not hinder democratic access to repair or circular innovation; small actors have an enhanced voice.

Informal and traditional repairers are recognised as innovators to counter prevailing IP logic which ignores social value.

Justice in circular economy value chains: the case of plastics

The 2025 ETC CE report A Just Transition to Circular Economy comprehensively analyses the value chains for batteries, textiles and plastics. It also discusses justice concerns relevant to the circular economy.

A just transition is particularly relevant in the plastics sector, as demonstrated by current justice debates surrounding the negotiations for a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty.

There are justice concerns at all stages of the plastics value chain, for example in relation to:

  • the impact of the production of plastics on frontline communities and workers;
  • health and environmental risks associated with the use of plastic products;
  • challenges linked to the management of waste plastics (ETC CE, 2025).

Figure 2 highlights the interconnectedness of justice considerations in the plastics value chain.

Figure 2. Justice conceptualisations for the plastics value chain

Please select a resource that has a preview image available.

Justice challenges and opportunities across the plastics value chain

In 2019, plastics pollution to the environment reached 22 million tonnes globally (OECD, 2022). While high-income countries tend to consume the most plastic globally, the highest levels of plastic leakage occur in low-income countries where the environmental, health and social impacts are often most acute (OECD, 2022).   

From a distributional justice perspective, this highlights how the benefits and costs of producing and using plastics are unevenly shared on a global level. The costs include exposure to pollution, unsafe working conditions and health risks (ETC CE, 2025).

There are prevalent justice concerns in the plastics value chain relating to the health of workers, communities and consumers. During production, the use of hazardous substances can expose workers and nearby communities to significant health risks (CIEL, 2023; ILO, 2023). Consumers might also be exposed to microplastics and hazardous substances through everyday use of plastic products including bottled drinking water (Parag et al., 2023; UNU INWEH, 2023). At the waste management stage, the release of toxic emissions from plastic incineration poses additional risks (CIEL, 2019).

The economic benefits are also unevenly distributed along the plastics value chain. Upstream producers tend to capture a large share of the profits, while downstream actors and communities often bear the costs associated with waste management, pollution and environmental remediation (ETC CE, 2025).

Procedural justice concerns arise where workers, communities and other affected groups have limited influence over decisions that shape the production, use and waste management of plastics. Evidence shows that labour rights, including access to information and freedom of association, are not consistently respected in the chemical and petrochemical industry (BHRRC & OHCHR, 2018; ILO, 2023).

At the same time, positive examples demonstrate how more inclusive approaches can improve outcomes. In Brazil, female waste picker cooperatives have strengthened skills, working conditions and social recognition through collective organisation; by organising they have improved their access to public renumeration schemes (Valencia et al., 2023). These experiences highlight the importance of freedom of association, access to information and the inclusion of formal and informal actors in policy processes (ETC CE, 2025).

Informal workers, in Europe and globally, play a crucial role in maintaining the circulation of materials, yet they remain largely invisible in decision-making, monitoring frameworks and social protection systems (ETC CE, 2025). From a recognitional justice perspective, a fair and effective circular transition can only be achieved by recognising the knowledge, skills and contributions of informal workers.

There are an estimated 11 million people worldwide working as informal waste pickers and recyclers; recognising them as skilled professionals legitimises their role in the circular economy and strengthens their capacity to act as educators and agents of behavioural change.

At the same time, reducing reliance on informal waste picking is necessary for ensuring a just transition. This includes supporting worker-led pathways to formalisation and broader investments that enable safer, well-organised waste management systems. Ultimately, high-income countries need to strive not to externalise their waste burdens by passing them on to low-income communities (ETC CE, 2025).

Conclusions

The transition to a circular economy has the potential to be fair and inclusive, but achieving this requires the deliberate integration of justice considerations. Without an explicit focus on distributional, procedural and recognitional justice, circular economy policies and strategies risk generating unintended negative consequences — including widening social and economic inequalities, marginalising vulnerable groups and leaving certain regions and communities behind.

High-quality jobs, strong labour standards and continuous skills development enhance productivity, innovation and workforce stability, enabling companies to scale up circular business models and remain competitive.

Inclusive access to training and decent work — especially for women and marginalised communities — supports labour transitions and reduces inequalities. At the same time, inclusive governance and transparent, effective circular value chains reduce supply chain risks, strengthen social cohesion and build public trust. In the long term this reinforces the resilience and strategic security of Europe’s circular economy.

Managed effectively, circular economy policies have the potential to generate substantial social benefits, enhancing employment, equity and societal resilience while supporting competitiveness across Europe.

1Identifiers2References3Footnotes

EEA Briefing 04/2026:

Title: Just transition to a circular economy

HTML: TH-01-26-011-EN-Q - ISBN: 978-92-9480-762-5 - ISSN: 2467-3196 - doi: 10.2800/1494103

BHRRC & OHCHR, 2018, Business & human rights in the chemical industry: An assessment of company responses to human rights issues, Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/files/BHRRC_Chemical_Briefing_30_Jan_2018.pdf) accessed 2 March 2026.

Calisto Friant, M., et al., 2024, ‘Transition to a Sustainable Circular Society: More than Just Resource Efficiency’, Circular Economy and Sustainability 4(1), pp. 23-42 (DOI: 10.1007/s43615-023-00272-3).

CIEL, 2019, Plastic & Health: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet, Center for International Environmental Law (https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Plastic-and-Health-The-Hidden-Costs-of-a-Plastic-Planet-February-2019.pdf) accessed 2 March 2026.

CIEL, 2023, Beyond Recycling Reckoning with Plastics in a Circular Economy, (https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Beyond-Recycling-Reckoning-with-Plastics-in-a-Circular-Economy.pdf) accessed 18 March 2026.

Circle Economy, et al., 2025, Employment in the circular economy: Leveraging circularity to create decent work, Circle Economy, Amsterdam (https://legacy.circle-economy.com/resources/employment-in-the-circular-economy) accessed 11 December 2025.

CISL, 2023, Inclusive Circularity: Creating decent and fair jobs in the EU, CLG Europe, Cambridge, UK.

Clube, R., 2022, ‘Is job creation a legitimate social benefit of the circular economy?’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 181, p. 106220 (DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106220).

Cook, E., et al., 2024, ‘Informal recycling sector contribution to plastic pollution mitigation: A systematic scoping review and quantitative analysis of prevalence and productivity’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 206, p. 107588 (DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107588).

Deutz, P., et al., 2024, ‘The role of place in the development of a circular economy: a critical analysis of potential for social redistribution in Hull, UK’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 17(3), pp. 551-564 (DOI: 10.1093/cjres/rsae002).

EC, 2025, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘The Clean Industrial Deal: A joint roadmap for competitiveness and decarbonisation’, COM/2025/85 final, (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025DC0085) accessed 11 December 2025.

EEA, 2024a, ‘Delivering justice in sustainability transitions’ (https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/delivering-justice-in-sustainability-transitions) accessed 9 December 2025.

EEA, 2024b, Just sustainability transitions: from concept to practice, EEA Report No 12/2024, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen (https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/just-sustainability-transitions) accessed 2 March 2026.

EEA, 2024c, ‘Production and consumption’ (https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/production-and-consumption) accessed 18 March 2026.

ETC CE, 2025, A Just Transition to Circular Economy, ETC CE Report No 2025/8, European Topic Centre on Circular economy and resource use (https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-ce/products/etc-ce-report-2025-8-a-just-transition-to-circular-economy) accessed 2 March 2026.

ETC CE, 2026a, A just transition to a circular economy: monitoring jobs, skills and workforce inclusion, European Topic Centre Circular Economy and Resource Use.

ETC CE, 2026b, A just transition to a circular economy: Operational framework and indicators, European Topic Centre Circular Economy and Resource Use.

Eurostat, 2025, Persons employed in circular economy sectors, (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/product/page/CEI_CIE011) accessed 7 January 2026, Eurostat.

German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection, 2024, Nationale Kreislaufwirtschaftsstrategie, (https://www.bmuv.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Abfallwirtschaft/nationale_kreislaufwirtschaftsstrategie_bf.pdf).

Hoyng, R., 2023, ‘Ecological ethics and the smart circular economy’, Big Data & Society 10(1), p. 20539517231158996 (DOI: 10.1177/20539517231158996).

ILO, 2023, Hazardous exposures to plastics in the world of work: Research report, International Labour Organization (https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_dialogue/@lab_admin/documents/publication/wcms_894387.pdf) accessed 2 March 2026.

Jaeger-Erben, M., et al., 2021, ‘There is no sustainable circular economy without a circular society’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 168, p. 105476 (DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105476).

Korsunova, A., et al., 2022, ‘Necessity-driven circular economy in low-income contexts: How informal sector practices retain value for circularity’, Global Environmental Change 76, p. 102573 (DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102573).

Levac, L., et al., 2018, Learning across Indigenous, Western Knowledge Approaches and Intersectionality: Reconciling Social Science Research Approaches, University of Guelph (https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19973.65763) accessed 2 March 2026.

Liu, K., 2025, ‘Contested circular economy and mixed social implications from practice: A scoping review’, Sustainable Development 33(2), pp. 2154-2170 (DOI: 10.1002/sd.3229).

Multani, M. and Bachus, K., 2024, ‘Which labour for the CE? An exploration of narratives on labour and circularity in Flanders’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 207, p. 107690 (DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107690).

OECD, 2022, Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, OECD Publishing, Paris (https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2022/02/global-plastics-outlook_a653d1c9/de747aef-en.pdf) accessed 2 March 2026.

O’Hare, P. and Nøklebye, E., 2024, ‘“The human face of the UN plastics treaty”? The role of waste pickers in intergovernmental negotiations to end plastic pollution and ensure a just transition’, Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 2, p. e12 (DOI: 10.1017/plc.2024.12).

Parag, Y., et al., 2023, ‘Bottled Water: An Evidence-Based Overview of Economic Viability, Environmental Impact, and Social Equity’, Sustainability 15(12), p. 9760 (DOI: 10.3390/su15129760).

Purvis, B., et al., 2025, ‘Grassroots initiatives for a bottom-up transition to a circular economy: exploring community repair’, Local Environment 0(0), pp. 1-17 (DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2025.2467385).

UNEP, 2020, Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organisations 2020, Life Cycle Initiative (https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/library/guidelines-for-social-life-cycle-assessment-of-products-and-organisations-2020/) accessed 26 February 2026.

UNU INWEH, 2023, Global Bottled Water Industry: A Review of Impacts and Trends, United Nations, University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, Hamilton, Canada (https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:9106/BottledWater_Report_Final_-compressed.pdf) accessed 2 March 2026.

Valencia, M., et al., 2023, ‘Waste picking as social provisioning: The case for a fair transition to a circular economy’, Journal of Cleaner Production 398, p. 136646 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136646).

Van Opstal, W., et al., 2025, ‘Mapping the prevalence and size of the informal circular economy in an industrialised region’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 218, p. 108268 (DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108268).

Van Opstal, W. and Borms, L., 2024, ‘Work integration ambitions of startups in the circular economy’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 95(2), pp. 477-504 (DOI: 10.1111/apce.12431).

Wilson, D. C., et al., 2006, ‘Role of Informal Sector Recycling in Waste Management in Developing Countries’, Habitat International 30, pp. 797-808.

  1. The number includes people employed in fully circular sectors — such as repair, recycling, second-hand trade, waste management and urban transit (121 million people or 5% of total employment worldwide excluding in agriculture) — and people who work in partially circular sectors, such as mining, manufacturing and construction (another 21 million (0.8%)).
    ↵
  2. For this analysis, stakeholder categories and impact subcategories outlined in the (UNEP, 2020) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment have been adapted. The impact categories defined are human rights, working conditions, health and safety, cultural heritage, governance and socio-economic repercussions. Each domain encompasses a further set of subcategories that present an analytical lens for assessing the social dimensions of circular transitions, as presented in the tables.
    ↵
  3. The term circular society is used in the literature to denote a societal extension of the circular economy that foregrounds social participation, power relations, knowledge inclusion and human-environment relations as enabling conditions for circular transitions, rather than focusing solely on resource efficiency (Calisto Friant et al., 2024; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021).
    ↵
  4. There is no single Indigenous or Western way of knowing. Here, Western knowledge creation is understood as being influenced by the philosophical tradition of positivism, whereby scholarship tends to be differentiated into disciplines with an emphasis on mathematical and linguistic intelligences. In comparison, many Indigenous ways of knowing rely more on other intelligences such as interpersonal or spiritual intelligences (Levac et al., 2018)
    ↵