Patrick Moloney
11 November 2025
Is resource autonomy the new circular economy?
In an era of escalating resource scarcity and geopolitical instability, the concept of resource autonomy is rapidly gaining traction as a strategic imperative. This article explores how resource autonomy not only complements but potentially supersedes the circular economy as a framework for future-proofing industrial systems.
The circular economy is no longer just about reducing waste and closing loops. It is being reframed in real time as a lever for industrial strategy and resilience. Its core principles – decoupling growth from material use, extending product life cycles, and regenerating systems – remain influential, but a new narrative now places resource autonomy at the centre.
This evolution reflects broader shifts in the global environment. Geopolitical instability, exposed supply dependencies, and the race for green and digital technologies have highlighted the risks of material reliance. In Europe especially, debates on circularity are increasingly tied to the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), the Clean Industrial Deal, and the wider discourse of strategic autonomy.
The result is a change in emphasis. The circular economy is not disappearing, but its primary framing is shifting from a paradigm of ecological sufficiency and sustainability to one that also serves industrial competitiveness and resource security. For companies, this introduces both opportunities and tensions. Circularity is no longer only a sustainability imperative but now also a strategic one.
The rise of resource autonomy
Across Europe, resource autonomy is increasingly presented as a necessity. The Critical Raw Materials Act embeds recycling and substitution targets as measures to reduce external dependencies rather than environmental goals. The Clean Industrial Deal frames circularity in the language of competitiveness and resilience. This trend is part of a broader global pattern with, for example, the United States’ Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) explicitly tying recycling and domestic sourcing to industrial renewal.
Language reflects this shift. Policymakers increasingly talk of “supply resilience”, “critical dependencies” and “strategic autonomy” rather than simply “waste reduction” or “closing loops”. The circular economy is being repositioned as a tool to safeguard competitiveness in a volatile world.
However, this shift introduces a kind of selective circularity. Strategic materials such as lithium, cobalt, copper, rare earths, silver, aluminium, now dominate the policy hierarchy, while other sectors such as textiles, food waste, and packaging, though still vital, risk drifting to the periphery. They attract less funding and visibility, despite their major environmental and social impacts.
For companies, the implications are clear. Initiatives linked to autonomy may benefit from favourable financing and regulatory clarity, while others must justify their relevance through broader sustainability value. Metrics are also evolving. Performance is now measured not only by waste reduction but by lowering strategic dependencies, improving supply security, and enhancing industrial resilience.
In short, the circular economy is becoming partly securitised, becoming a tool to navigate the politics of resilience in a changing world.
Consequences for the circular economy paradigm
The shift towards resource autonomy reaches beyond policy, touching the very identity of the circular economy. What began as a systemic framework for rethinking the relationship between economy and ecology now risks being channelled into narrower industrial objectives. The consequences emerge across several fronts:
1. The breadth of circularity risks is narrowing. Circularity was designed to be a paradigm that applies universally across materials, industries and communities, from high-tech recycling to grassroots repair cultures. With resource autonomy, attention may focus on a select group of critical materials and sectors that are strategically tied to competitiveness. This may strengthen resilience in those areas but dilutes circularity’s broader purpose – to transform how economies function as a whole.
2. Political and financial priorities become uneven. Sectors that are not part of the autonomy agenda risk falling into neglect, even though their environmental burdens remain immense. Textiles, plastics and food systems generate vast waste streams, drive biodiversity loss and contribute significantly to emissions, yet they do not figure prominently in strategic resilience strategies. If resources flow mainly into strategic autonomy initiatives, these other sectors may stagnate, creating an uneven circular economy where some loops close efficiently while others remain open.
3. The social and ethical dimensions of circularity may be sidelined. The vision of circularity also places value on repairability, local reuse, inclusive employment, and behavioural change. Under an autonomy framing, such community-led initiatives are harder to justify against industrial priorities and may be overshadowed by large-scale recycling projects. The risk is that circularity loses its social relevance and accessibility.
4.The risk of fragmentation increases. If autonomy dominates, regions may develop divergent models of circularity aligned to national interests. EU standards may differ from those in the US, leading to misaligned metrics and compliance burdens for global companies. This patchwork weakens the vision of a globally coherent circular economy, replacing it with regional silos that are difficult to integrate.
Together, these consequences suggest that the shift towards autonomy, while rational from a competitiveness standpoint, risks reshaping circularity into something narrower, more uneven, and less systemic. The challenge for policymakers, businesses and civil society is to recognise these risks early and ensure that autonomy-driven circularity does not crowd out the broader ambitions that first made the circular economy compelling.
"The reframing of circular economy around resource autonomy creates new incentives, but it also shifts expectations in ways that are not always obvious."
System-level risks and paradoxes
As resource autonomy becomes a central framing for the circular economy, a series of deeper tensions and paradoxes emerge. These are not simply technical challenges but structural dilemmas that shape how far circularity can deliver on its original promise. They highlight that while autonomy-driven circularity can enhance resilience, it also risks narrowing the paradigm, creating new dependencies and undermining legitimacy if not carefully balanced.
These paradoxes do not suggest that autonomy is misguided. On the contrary, autonomy is a rational response to real vulnerabilities. But they do show that autonomy alone cannot define the future of circularity without eroding its systemic and transformative potential.
Autonomy vs interdependence. While autonomy is a legitimate goal, complete self-sufficiency in materials is impossible. Even the most ambitious recycling targets cannot meet growing demand driven by electrification, renewables, and digitalisation Overemphasising autonomy risks ignoring the benefits of global cooperation, trade diversification, and shared resource governance. For companies, this paradox means they must plan for both greater domestic recovery and ongoing exposure to international supply dynamics.
Resilience vs lock-in. Building recycling and recovery systems for strategic materials strengthens short-term resilience but may create new forms of dependency. Large-scale battery recycling, for instance, can reduce reliance on mined lithium or cobalt but may lock industries into specific technologies and infrastructures that could themselves become vulnerable. Heavy reliance on digital monitoring or advanced sorting systems can expose firms to cyber risk, monopolies, or shortages of critical inputs. In short, one dependency may simply replace another.
Legitimacy vs instrumentalisation. The circular economy gained momentum as a systemic, holistic model balancing environmental, economic, and social priorities. If reduced to an instrument of industrial policy, it risks losing legitimacy as a sustainability framework. Stakeholders may perceive it as serving corporate or geopolitical interests rather than society at large. For businesses, this could translate into reputational risk and scepticism toward initiatives seen as self-serving..
Systemic breadth vs strategic narrowing. The promise of the circular economy is to redesign the relationship between economy and ecology, embedding sufficiency, regeneration, and long-term resilience. A resource autonomy framing narrows this ambition to a technical project of securing critical materials. While valuable, this shift risks sidelining wider ecological and sustainability challenges such as biodiversity loss, pollution, or overconsumption. If strategic narrowing dominates, circularity may lose its ability to drive systemic transformation and instead become a specialised branch of industrial policy.
What this means for companies
For companies, the evolution of circularity is both a strategic opportunity and a potential blind spot. The reframing of circular economy around resource autonomy creates new incentives, but it also shifts expectations in ways that are not always obvious.
Opportunities arise from alignment. Circular initiatives that contribute directly to autonomy objectives are increasingly supported through policy, finance and market demand. Battery recycling, recovery of critical components from renewable infrastructure, and industrial symbiosis projects that reduce dependence on imported inputs are prime examples. These activities are often highlighted in regulatory frameworks and industrial policy packages, creating clear signals for investors and customers.
Yet the risk of tunnel vision is equally significant. A narrow focus on autonomy-linked materials and sectors may cause companies to overlook broader environmental responsibilities, reputational expectation or hidden vulnerabilities in value chains. Stakeholders, including investors, NGOs, regulators and even employees, are increasingly alert to the difference between compliance-driven alignment and systemic sustainability. A company that positions itself only within autonomy-driven initiatives may be perceived as opportunistic, prioritising short-term industrial gains while neglecting wider ecological or social issues. Such perceptions can erode trust and undermine legitimacy, even if the company is technically aligned with industrial policy.
This suggests that companies should adopt a dual approach.
- Align with autonomy-driven incentives where relevant, by focusing on critical raw materials recovery, renewable infrastructure recycling, and advanced industrial symbiosis. But ensure these efforts are embedded in broader corporate strategy, not pursued as isolated projects.
- Maintain systemic breadth by investing in circular practices beyond the autonomy agenda, such as sustainable packaging, repair, and reuse models that engage consumers. These demonstrate a company’s long-term commitment, safeguard reputation, and strengthen resilience as policy and market conditions evolve.
Foresight is critical, as the framing of circularity continues to evolve. Companies that monitor these shifts and adapt strategies flexibly will be better placed to avoid both dependency risks and reputational exposure. In practice, circularity should be approached as a portfolio of strategies with some closely tied to resource autonomy and others anchored in wider ecological and social responsibility. The strength of a company’s response will depend not only on where it positions itself today, but on how well it anticipates and prepares for the shifting paradigm over the coming months and years.
Moving forward
The circular economy is being reshaped by the imperative of resource autonomy. This does not mean its ecological and sustainability roots have disappeared. However, it does mean the paradigm is evolving in ways that emphasise competitiveness, resilience and security of supply.
Whether autonomy becomes the dominant framing remains uncertain. It may coexist with broader ecological, social and sustainability ambitions, or it may narrow the paradigm over time. The outcome will depend on how different actors including policymakers, companies and civil society choose to interpret and implement circularity.
For businesses, the challenge is to navigate this evolution without reducing circularity to a single dimension. Resource autonomy may well become a central organising principle, but the wider promise of circular economy lies in its ability to integrate autonomy with systemic sustainability.
The question is not whether the circular economy will change since the change is already underway. The real question is how far the autonomy framing will carry, and whether it can be balanced with the broader vision that originally made the circular economy compelling.
Want to know more?
Patrick Moloney
Global Director, Sustainability Consulting & ESG
+45 51 61 66 46