Felix Carl Schultz

Circular economy (CE) strategies are commonly promoted through morally charged narratives, yet they can still produce rebound effects, i.e., unintended consequences in resource use that offset anticipated benefits. Existing circular economy rebound (CER) research has largely explained such backfire through techno-economic mechanisms, while behavioral scholarship has highlighted moral licensing at the individual level. This article integrates these strands by conceptualizing moral rebound : a system-level deterioration of circular outcomes that can arise when morally saturated CE aspirations outpace the governance capacity required to operationalize them, thus promoting symbolic compliance or free-riding dynamics. Drawing on the ordonomic approach, this article conceptualizes moral rebound as a misalignment between normative semantics (ideas) and institutional incentives (governance). We develop a two-dimensional diagnostic space: normativity (realism vs. overload) and stakeholder governance (functional vs. dysfunctional), creating four heuristic regions within a continuous space capturing fluid real-world trajectories. We anchor this framework with illustrative cases, illuminating how selected backfire mechanisms documented in prior CER research may be interpreted through the lens of under-governed symbolic circularity. Finally, we derive three theoretically grounded propositions specifying conditions under which moral rebound may become more plausible, and propose possible governance levers for future empirical assessment, emphasizing verification and traceability, credible commitments across stakeholders, pacing of ambition, and intermediary coordination. This framework endogenizes moral discourse within rebound dynamics and offers a theoretical building block for systematic learning on moral rebound; one that calls for future empirical validation.

The transition to a circular economy (CE) increasingly depends on circular ecosystems: networks of autonomous yet interdependent actors that must coordinate material, information, and value flows to narrow, slow, and close resource loops. This creates a governance problem: Circularity requires orchestration, yet no single actor can impose coordination hierarchically. Combining an integrative review of peer‐reviewed articles at the intersection of CE, dynamic capabilities (DCs), and leadership research with theory synthesis, we introduce Circular Ecosystem‐Orchestrating Leadership (CEOL): an actor‐level, boundary‐spanning leadership capability that helps convert coordination barriers into governance outputs. We theorize three mechanisms: (1) narrative bridging translates divergent circularity meanings into shared interpretive frames; (2) platform convening creates credible multilateral commitments for coordinated investment; and (3) institutional entrepreneurship produces legitimate rule adaptation across public and private arenas. Each mechanism has a primary pathway to collective sensing, seizing, or reconfiguring respectively, but the mechanisms interact laterally and are recursively reshaped by the collective capabilities they support. Through these governance outputs, CEOL microfounds ecosystem‐level DCs. The framework advances CE leadership research beyond firm‐level adoption, extends DC theory by specifying governance‐mediated microfoundations of collective capabilities, and reframes circular ecosystem governance as a contested, territorially conditioned achievement vulnerable to narrative capture, platform capture or exclusion, and regulatory capture.

The circular economy (CE) has traditionally been positioned as a central instrument of the sustainability paradigm. Yet escalating geopolitical volatility and supply chain fragility have elevated resilience to a parallel strategic imperative, and the conceptual integration of CE and resilience remains underexplored. This article bridges this gap by reconceptualizing CE as a foundational instrument for (systemic) resilience. We advance eight theoretically grounded propositions specifying how core CE strategies (i.e., narrowing, slowing, and closing loops) can foster resilience across three nested levels: macro (socioeconomic systems), meso (territorial ecosystems and supply chains), and micro (organizations and products). A nested‐level proposition specifies the coupling between these levels and shows that cross‐level cascades may be reinforcing or countervailing. We argue that CE's future value lies in securing long‐term system continuity under exogenous shocks. By positioning CE as an instrument through which a resilience paradigm can be operationalized alongside sustainability, i.e., a paradigmatic evolution rather than a replacement, we offer a theoretical trajectory and research agenda for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers navigating an increasingly volatile global context.

Circular economy (CE) strategies are increasingly expected to enhance resilience under geopolitical volatility, supply disruption, and critical-material insecurity. Yet CE–resilience research reports heterogeneous findings: circularity may reduce vulnerability, create brittleness, or do both under different conditions. This article argues that these findings become intelligible once specified resilience is distinguished from general resilience. CE strategies can strengthen specified resilience by reducing exposure to identifiable disruptions such as material scarcity, import dependence, or supply-chain interruption. At the same time, efficiency-oriented circularity may weaken general resilience when it narrows response diversity, reduces slack, increases coupling, or creates dependence on specialized recovery infrastructures. We explain this ambiguity by conceptualizing Circular Resilience as the governance of system options: collectively valuable capacities that preserve alternative courses of action under disturbance. Using ordonomics as an analytical lens, the framework connects operational circularity, governance, and legitimation. The article contributes to CE–resilience scholarship by showing how circularity can simultaneously enhance specified resilience and threaten general resilience, and why preserving system options depends on governance and legitimation.

Firms struggle to transition to circular economy ( CE ) models, often citing external barriers. Yet some firms succeed, whereas others fail: Why? We argue that success depends on a specific governance capability—a meta‐capability that allows firms to (1) sense and strategically reframe CE imperatives, (2) seize opportunities by aligning diverse stakeholders, and (3) reconfigure institutional incentives. Building on dynamic capability (DC) theory, we conceptualize this governance meta‐capability as an external‐facing DC that enables firms to translate sustainability imperatives into robust business strategies. This capability acts as a translator between sustainability goals and business strategy, enabling firms to proactively construct, test, and scale circular business cases and models rather than wait for favorable external conditions. We thus shift the explanation for CE performance from external barriers to internal, DCs, showing how the business case for circularity is strategically built, not passively discovered, and offering a theory‐driven framework for understanding how firms can develop this governance meta‐capability.

The Space Economy (SE) is rapidly expanding, yet its reliance on a linear production and consumption model is intensifying the orbital debris problem and stands in tension with the core principles of a Circular Economy (CE). Despite increasing attention to both domains, scholarship at their intersection remains fragmented and conceptually underdeveloped, limiting cumulative theorizing on how circularity can be conceptualized in SE contexts. Addressing this gap, I conduct an integrative review of CE and SE research published between 2010 and 2025, synthesizing the contemporary literature into an organizing framework for conceptualizing the Circular Space Economy (CSE). Building on this synthesis, I advance a ten-point research agenda structured across four distinct yet interdependent pillars: (1) Orbital Property Rights and Governance; (2) Circular Ecosystems and Supply Chains; (3) Circular Business Models and Circular Product Design & Technologies; and (4) Methods and Metrics for CSE. This agenda supports future theory development and empirical research and offers a roadmap for scholars, policymakers, and industry leaders to secure the orbital environment and advance circular resource stewardship on Earth.

The circular economy (CE) has emerged as a transformative paradigm for addressing the intertwined crises of environmental degradation and resource scarcity, grounded in the moral principles of intergenerational equity, environmental sustainability, and shared responsibility. However, in the European Union (EU), the development of the CE has been hindered by technological, economic, regulatory, and cultural barriers, leaving its compelling moral case significantly under‐implemented. Drawing on Luhmann's systems theory, this forum article reconceptualizes the moral case for the CE as a normative expectation—a societal “ought” that retains its validity even when violated. These violations, we argue, function as productive irritations, catalyzing the evolution of the CE by driving innovation, societal critique, and gradual adaptation. We analyze this evolutionary trajectory by distinguishing three stages of CE development in the EU: (i) semantic articulation, (ii) structural consolidation, and (iii) emergent alignment of semantics and structures. Our argument highlights the importance of embracing the gaps between normative aspirations and practical realities as a vital resource for advancing CE development, offering valuable insights for scholarship, policymakers, and businesses.

Recent circular economy (CE) literature has examined the opportunities and limitations of business case logics, yet this area remains under‐theorized. This article contributes to the emerging debate by drawing on the stakeholder business case for sustainability from corporate sustainability literature, emphasizing the role of stakeholder collaboration in addressing sustainability challenges. By adopting the ordonomic approach from business ethics, we (re‐)conceptualize the stakeholder business case for CE, focusing on the dynamic interplay between profit motives and stakeholder collaboration. This article makes three key contributions. First, it bridges the gap between theoretical business case logics and CE practices, demonstrating how innovative stakeholder governance can foster incentive‐ and system‐compatible CE integration. Second, it contends that successful CE practices demand a comprehensive, system‐level approach that actively involves all stakeholders. It underscores the importance of broad stakeholder engagement in business case development and illustrates how such collaboration harmonizes individual and collective interests within a CE. Third, it expands the stakeholder business case for sustainability by introducing a conceptual distinction between stakeholders’ semantics, governance, and optimization. This distinction offers new opportunities to reconcile profit orientation with environmental stewardship, advancing the societal transition to a functional CE.