What defenders of the circular economy get right, and what they don’t: normative bias, academic elitism, and self-positioning in circular economy scholarship

Abstract This paper critically examines two recent defences of the circular economy by Julian Kirchherr and co-authors, arguing that, rather than merely responding to criticism, they aim to preserve a particular version of the circular economy as optimistic, institutionally pragmatic, growth-compatible, and expert-led. It contends that these defences acknowledge important limitations in circular economy practice and discourse, yet work to contain the implications of critical scholarship by reproducing an eco-modernist understanding of sustainability, depoliticising circular transition through the treatment of critique as a threat to legitimacy and momentum, and relying on selective evidence, limited methodological grounding, and partial readings of opposing arguments. The paper further argues that these contributions advance a narrow, hierarchical view of academic value centred on visibility, applicability, and practitioner relevance, while simultaneously reinforcing the authors’ own authority within the field through self-positioning and repeated reliance on their prior work. Although it recognises that defenders of the circular economy are right to highlight certain conditions that help explain the concept’s continued appeal and institutional traction, it ultimately concludes that these defences are not simply analytical responses to criticism, but normative efforts to delimit what counts as legitimate critique and authoritative knowledge in circular economy scholarship.