This is one of a series of articles on Circular Economy by Lorinda Cramer and Deborah Lee-Talbot, published for #WorldEnvironmentDay 2025
First used in 1953 by the American economist Howard Bowen, the term “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) acknowledges the growing social power of organisations.[1] Typically, CSR manifests as corporations “giving back”, a process that has the potential both to create links with communities and grow a brand’s identity. Although CSR is not new, it has gained a new life in the twenty-first century.
For example, since 2003, corporations like Telstra have released CSR reports that link business growth and a positive commitment to the community, environment, economy and industry. Since 2023 the manufacturer of Pine O Cleen, Reckitt Benckiser, has partnered with the Australian Red Cross for the “Cleen Up Program” that provides financial and product support to those impacted.[2]
The CSR approach has evolved to incorporate or sit alongside the circular economy (CE) and community development, marking a new era of corporate responsibility. There is no current, universally accepted definition of the CE amongst academics, government, or industries. However, one of the most frequently cited descriptions of CE calls it:
an economic model based on sharing, lending, reusing, repairing, upgrading and recycling, in a closed loop, which aims to maintain maximum utility and value of products, components and materials in production/distribution and consumption processes, operating at micro, meso and macro levels, with the aim of achieving sustainable development, which implies creating environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity, at all times.[3]
Regardless of the specific definition, engaging in a circular economy requires a commitment to cultural change for social and environmental gain.
The principles of CE have become increasingly important as countries around the world recognised the need to respond to climate change. On 12 December 2015, the global effort to combat climate change culminated in the Paris Agreement. This strategic approach was agreed to by nations including Australia. The Paris Agreement aims to limit global temperature rise to below 2°C – and [4] to 1.5°C – and underscores a global commitment to reducing social inequality and mitigating environmental damage caused by industrial practices.[5] That same year, the principles of CE were also reflected in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which were adopted by signatory nations.[6]
Certain countries were at the forefront of the CE movement. China was one of the first nations to successfully embed “reuse, recycle, and recovery” practice into national policy, beginning in 2002.[7] In alignment with the SDGs, China implemented a ban on the importation of foreign waste in 2017 – leaving Australia, along with other nations, scrambling for new recycling processes in the wake of the ban. In response to China’s ban, the European Union constructed export policies, changed their waste regulations and sought to reduce the need for foreign waste processing.[8] For instance, since the 1st January 2021, EU countries have been prohibited from exporting plastic waste deemed unsuitable for recycling.[9]
Although Australia has been slow on the uptake of CE practices, this delayed entry has allowed for valuable observation of international models. As a UN SDG signatory, Australia has been influenced by the top-down, multinational approach to CE particularly in waste management. Policymakers and social entrepreneurs have had the opportunity to draw on and learn from China’s government-led initiatives and the EU’s regional infrastructure frameworks to guide domestic strategies. China provided templates for implementing government led initiatives.[10] Although the Rudd/Gillard government had emphasised sustainability and attending to climate change, with the adoption of the SDG’s, a commitment to climate responsibility became bipartisan policy. in 2017, Australia released a Foreign Policy White Paper that reaffirmed its commitment to global efforts in poverty reduction, disaster relief, and sustainable development.[11] The following year, paying attention to changes in environmental sustainability and social impacts, Australia released its National Waste Policy.[12]
Despite these initiatives, Australian industries have been cautious in implementing CE. While a number of innovative, environmentally focused companies have embraced CE, many businesses continue to rely on minimum compliance with environmental regulations to avoid broader responsibility.[13] Australia’s longstanding participation in a global linear economy has hindered the widespread adoption of CE principles. As companies increasingly operate on a global scale, they import and export both components and finished goods, reinforcing traditional European economic models.[14] Australia’s economy, historically rooted in the extraction and export of natural resources, remains dependent on these industries. For instance, in August 2021, Australia exported $33.9 billion worth of minerals, metals, and energy commodities —comprising of 69% of export revenue and underpinning a record trade surplus.[15] In February 2025, imported consumer goods including food, clothing, and footwear were valued at AUD 12.23 billion.[16]
The persistence of “use-and-dispose” waste practices continues to shape Australian business culture. CSIRO modelling suggests that CE implementation in Australia is hampered by this linear “buy-use-waste” model, an approach reinforced by competitive capitalist structures.[17] This approach undermines the foundational principal of collaboration essential for CE success. As the CSIRO notes, “Business-to-business collaboration is essential for the circular economy…[h]owever, only 12% of Australian businesses collaborate for innovation”.[18]
Concerns about the energy efficiency of recycled products further contribute to consumer hesitation around CE. The practice of “greenwashing” – that is, misleading stakeholders with exaggerated or false claims of environmental responsibility – undermines trust in sustainability initiatives. Often characterised by vague language or irrelevant metrics, greenwashing stands in opposition to the transparent, educational ethos of genuine CE businesses which aim to reveal the full lifecycle of products and the integrity of close-loop systems.
Implementing CE successfully requires coordinated efforts at global, regional, state and local levels. In Australia, emerging policies and practices reflect a complex interplay of industry demands, business strategies, residential needs and consumer behaviours. Since 2019, all levels of government have supported the National Waste Policy and Action Plan to increase material recovery, recycle and reuse.[19] Governments at local, state and territory levels across Australia have created CE policy concerning the dominant industries in their region including fashion, textiles, plastic and batteries. With the release of Australia’s Circular Economy Framework: Doubling our circularity rate (2024), the federal government has signalled its commitment to a uniquely Australian CE approach.
Our research investigates some of the CE efforts of industries across Australia. To mark World Environment Day, held on 5 June each year, we will share examples of how CE is being implemented in our everyday lives. We range from fashion to the morning coffee, and suggest further avenues for improving Australia’s uptake of CE in our short pieces published by the Australian Policy and History Network this week.
Notes
[1] Howard R. Bowen, The Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, with a foreword by Peter Geoffrey Bowen and an introduction by Jean-Pascal Gond (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2013).
[2] Australian Red Cross, ‘Charity and Corporate Partnerships’, https://www.redcross.org.au/charity-corporate-partnerships/#:~:text=With%20the%20iconic%20disinfectant%20brand,individuals%20and%20communities%20across%20Australia, accessed 16 May 2025; Probono Australia, ‘Telstra Releases First CSR Report’, 24 November 2003, https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2003/11/telstra-releases-first-csr-report/, accessed 16 May 2025.
[3] Kirchherr et al., ‘Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions’, Resources, Conservation & Recycling 127 (2017): 224.
[5] United Nations, ‘Sustainable Development Goals’, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/, accessed 1 March 2025; and ‘Key Messages: Australia’, United Nations, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/australia#:~:text=Australia%20is%20committed%20to%20the,of%20people%20across%20the%20world, accessed 18 April 2025.
[6] United Nations, ‘Sustainable Development Goals’, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/, accessed 1 March 2025; and ‘Key Messages: Australia’, United Nations, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/australia#:~:text=Australia%20is%20committed%20to%20the,of%20people%20across%20the%20world, accessed 18 April 2025.
[7] Biwei Su, Almas Heshmati, Yong Geng, and Xiaoman Yu, ‘A Review of the Circular Economy in China: Moving from Rhetoric to Implementation’, Journal of Cleaner Production 42 (2013): 215–227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.020.
[8] Eugenie Joltreau, ‘Five Years after China’s Plastic Import Ban: Have Europeans Taken Responsibility?’, Centre for Energy & Climate, https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/migrated_files/documents/atoms/files/joltreau_plastic_waste_after_chinas_ban_2022.pdf, accessed 22 May 2025.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Raimund Bleischwitz et al., ‘The Circular Economy in China: Achievements, Challenges and Potential Implications for Decarbonisation’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 183 (August 2022): Article 106350, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106350; and ‘FRONTSH1P – A Frontrunner Approach to Systemic Circular Holistic Inclusive Solutions’, Circular Cities and Regions Initiative, https://circular-cities-and-regions.ec.europa.eu/ccri-projects/frontsh1p-frontrunner-approach-systemic-circular-holistic-inclusive-solutions.
[11] Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Australia in the Asian Century: Australia’s Roadmap for Navigating the Asian Century, 28 October 2012. ‘United Nations, ‘Key Messages: Australia’, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/australia#:~:text=Australia%20is%20committed%20to%20the,of%20people%20across%20the%20world, accessed 18 April 2025.
[12] Australian Government, National Waste Policy: Action Plan 2024, https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/publications/national-waste-policy-action-plan, accessed May 2025.
[13] J. Tanwar, ‘Rethinking Green Antitrust: The Double-Edged Opportunities and Barriers in Pursuit of a Circular Australian Economy’, The University of New South Wales Law Journal Forum (2024): 1–17 (p. 2); and ‘Motivation and Barriers to Adoption of Circular Economy in Tourism and Hospitality’, 2025.
[14] Tania Constable, ‘Mining Exports Are the Foundation of Australia’s Economic Prosperity’, Minerals Council of Australia, 5 October 2021, https://minerals.org.au/resources/mining-exports-are-the-foundation-of-australias-economic-prosperity/, accessed May 2025.
[15] Tania Constable, Mining exports are the foundation of Australia’s economic prosperity, 05 October 2021 https://minerals.org.au/resources/mining-exports-are-the-foundation-of-australias-economic-prosperity/
[16] ‘Australia Imports’, Trading Economics, https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/imports#:~:text=Australia’s%20imports%20of%20goods%20increased,inorganic%20chemicals%20(%2D8.6%25), accessed May 2025.
[17] Commonwealth of Australia, Australia’s Circular Economy Framework: Doubling Our Circularity Rate (Canberra: DCCEEW, 2024), 1–40.
[18] Commonwealth of Australia, Australia’s Circular Economy Framework: Doubling Our Circularity Rate, 15–27.
[19] Regional Australia Institute, Circular Economy in Action: Regional Perspectives (Canberra: Regional Australia Institute, 23 October 2024), 1–32 (p. 9), https://apo.org.au/node/328770, accessed 22 January 2025.
