The idea of designing products and systems so materials stay in use rather than becoming waste has been mainstream for a decade. Some of it has scaled and some remains aspiration.
What works
Metals recycling, which predates the terminology and is economically self-sustaining because the material is valuable. Aluminium, copper, steel – the loop closes because scrap is worth collecting.
Refurbishment of electronics, which has become a substantial market as devices improved to the point where a three-year-old phone is still useful.
Industrial by-product exchange, where one process’s waste is another’s input, in clusters where the logistics work.
What does not
Plastics recycling, at any meaningful rate. The materials are cheap, sorting is expensive, and recycled output is lower quality than virgin. Most plastic labelled recyclable is not recycled.
Textiles, where fibre recovery is technically difficult and the garments are worth too little to justify it.
Consumer take-back schemes with low participation and high handling costs.
The design problem
Products designed to be disassembled and recovered cost more to make and are rarely made unless regulation requires it. The circular economy is a design constraint, and design constraints get adopted when they are mandatory.
What is changing
Extended producer responsibility rules that make manufacturers pay for disposal, which changes the incentive at the design stage. Repair requirements. And material costs rising enough to make recovery worthwhile for categories where it was not.
The realistic picture
Works where the material is valuable or the regulation is firm. Does not work on goodwill.