While the ‘circular economy’ is often discussed within the context of waste management, it is not just about waste management. Professor Linda Godfrey, principal scientist at the CSIR, says, “The circular economy is not a synonym for recycling, nor is it just waste management. It is about sustainable resource management.”

This circular approach contrasts with the linear economy, which follows a ‘straight line’ of use from extraction to disposal. Prof Godfrey adds, “The circular economy is about national resource security in support of socioeconomic development through sustainable resource utilisation.” This approach to the economy sees a radical shift in resource extraction, design, manufacturing, and end of life, and has been gaining popularity in the face of climate change and global shifts in carbon minimisation.

Why change is needed

Godfrey says, “The circular economy emerged as a response to the current economic system which takes resources for granted and uses them in an unsustainable manner. The global research is quite clear that the demand for finite natural resources is rising amidst the depletion of said resources. we have seen four main drivers of a circular economy transition, emerge globally: resource scarcity, environmental (climate mitigation, halting biodiversity loss and reducing water stress), economic recovery, and socio-economic development.”

According to the International Resource Panel (2019), resource extraction and processing is responsible for 50% of climate impacts, 90% of water stress, and 90% of biodiversity loss due to land use. This is the context that underpins the urgency for the circular economy. If we are to address the big planetary crises facing us, with must rethink our resource use.

The continued demand for resources led to the European Commission identifying 14 Critical Raw Materials (CRM) in 2011. These are considered a constraint to European industry and value chains and in 2023 the list was updated to include 34 CRMs. South Africa has also published its list of CRMs in a 2025 document titled, “Critical Minerals and Metals Strategy which also includes mitigation strategies. Godfrey adds, “We are likely to see the first depletion of key resources in our lifetime. The warnings signs are clear.”

Growing resource constraints are now affecting manufacturing around the globe., In 2025, we have seen the impact of China’s squeeze on rare earth exports, causing major disruptions across automotive and electronics supply chains, causing businesses to either change their operations or shut down.

The threat of climate change is also a major driver of the circular economy. The World Economic Forum suggests that climate change is currently the second biggest threat to the world’s economic system but will become the biggest threat in the coming 10 years. Along with climate change, its various effects such as permanent changes to the earth, biodiversity loss and natural resource loss emerge as greater threats than the current biggest threat, mis, and dis-information.

Godfrey says, “What we see happening now is the result of years of adhering to an unsustainable economic practice that sees access to inexpensive material, energy, and labour as infinite and necessary.

A case study for the circular economy

Godfrey points to our current attitudes, both personally and commercially, to consumer electronic products (CEPs) as an example of the problems associated with the linear economy and a path towards circularity,

“The current approach to CEPs follows a highly linear process, where devices are typically used once and then discarded. Only a modest fraction of end-of-use products are collected for recycling, and an even smaller portion of materials, mainly high-value metals, is recovered. This system is further strained by accelerating demand for new products, driven by shorter product lifecycles, rapid technological change, and limited repair options. As a result, many CEPs are replaced long before they become technologically obsolete, despite still retaining significant functional value at the end of their first use.”

In opposition to the “throw away” system, the circular economy emphasises Value Retention Processes (VRPs) which preserve value, prolong use, and delay disposal. Godfrey notes, “interestingly, value retention of products in the global south is more frequently observed, typically driven by higher levels of poverty and unemployment, and a more active informal sector. The informal economy practices a consumer-to-consumer model that repairs and directly reuses CEPs.

“This reuse and repair of products such as laptops, smartphones, and televisions offer a significant opportunity for growth,” adds Godfrey. The current reuse model found in the informal economy has its own issues particularly that it does not provide the greatest socio-economic, environmental benefit, or product performance. Godfrey highlights a study done by the Waste and Society SARChI Chair hosted by the

University of Western Cape waste and society. This study interviewed 832 repairers and refurbishes in 11 cities and towns, in all 8 provinces and found:

• 74% of VRPs occurred within the informal sector, and 26% in the formal sector
• 65% of those interviewed dismantled products
• 99% repaired products
• 45% said they refurbished the products.

The study also noted that the majority of these informal repair businesses were done by non-South African citizens who had previous training before arriving in South Africa, and that this training was informal and often familial.

In other African countries like Ghana, VRP represents a sizable area of economic growth. A study done by the Rochester Institute of Technology found that in Ghana, particularly, the smartphone market represents the highest potential for industry employment growth, due to the unique combination of its high VRP uptake potential and substantial expected market growth.

Extended producer responsibility

Introduced in 2021, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations state that those who produce or import electrical and electronic equipment are responsible for the management of that product at end of life. This means that brand owners must put mechanisms in place to allow everyday consumers to safely dispose or recycle the products they consume.

As policy, EPR has changed the waste management landscape in South Africa, but these laws are still in their infancy and Godfrey notes, “EPR laws specifically address downstream waste and emphasise collection and growing the recycling sector. While recycling is vital, it represents a lower value approach than reuse, repair, and remanufacturing.”

While EPR is growing the recycling sector and aiding in waste diversion, EPR laws can provide incentives to brand owners to design with reuse and repair in mind. “Products seem to be designed for obsolescence, and repairs can be expensive to the point that it makes little sense to do so. EPR as a policy instrument can help to drive design-for-circularity, through for example eco-modulated fees. However, there may be a need to consider other types of policy instruments to help facilitate greater consumer right-to-repair,’ as we are now seeing in other parts of the world, such as the European Union.

Godfrey concludes, “Value retention for consumer electronic products is happening in South Africa, mostly informally, but not in a way that maintains greatest product value or creates greatest socio-economic benefit for the country. Scaling VRP adoption will require significant changes in product strategies and business-to-consumer (B2C) models. The circular economy is going to drive disruption, and businesses can either try to wait it out, or be first to move and use circular economy principles to drive greater competitiveness.”