Circular Economy : EU waste management – Quo vadis?

Within the context of “strong” sustainability, conventional approaches to waste management must be fundamentally reimagined. A transformative shift in how we organize material and energy cycles could significantly reduce the ongoing dependence on virgin raw materials for manufacturing or fossil fuels for energy production. Rather than perpetuating a linear model in which resources are extracted, used, and ultimately discarded as waste—with the design of products themselves driving this cycle—we must pursue processes that treat waste as a valuable resource. For instance, by refining waste streams to recover atomic and molecular components efficiently, these resources could be reintegrated directly into production systems.

Only through such a systemic redesign can we begin to realize a truly circular economy—one that goes beyond symbolic gestures and embodies the principles of strong sustainability. This vision aligns with the pioneering ideas of Alfons Grooterhorst, whose work The Dilemma with Waste and the Quintessence of Sustainability [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] explores the evolution of sustainability thinking and the challenges of waste management. His contributions highlight both innovative strategies and the structural shifts needed to make this transformation viable.

In Europe, waste management has evolved from pure disposal to a circular economy, transforming from a health problem to be solved into a source of business opportunities. Whereas in the past—in Europe—the aim was to dispose of waste as efficiently as possible (sanitary landfill, waste incineration), today the focus is on material and energy recovery. In particular, the groundbreaking work of Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch, who identified bacteria as a cause of disease, is seen as a breakthrough in the development of effective public health and waste management practices. In addition, the first oil crisis of 1973/1974 sparked a significant debate, particularly among scientists and the Club of Rome, about the limited resources of our planet and the need for sustainable resource management. In fact, the EU generated around 2.54 billion tonnes of waste in 2022, of which municipal waste—such as household waste, bulky waste, street sweepings or green waste—accounted for around 20% at around 513 million tonnes [6]. In the same year, Germany generated 411 million tonnes of waste, of which around 51 million tonnes was municipal waste [7].

These quantities have remained stable in recent decades, but the negative impact to the earth caused by the constant depletion of resources is continuing. This means that the decoupling of economic growth and waste production is not working.

However, performance in energy and material recovery varies significantly across Member States. While Northern and Western Europe have achieved strong results, Southern and Eastern European countries continue to face challenges. In addition, the final treatment of byproducts from waste incineration process remains a central problem—a point that is repeatedly emphasized in the sustainability debate [5]. Beyond this, in many countries around the world, waste management is currently still limited to collection and dumping in uncontrolled landfills, as was the case in Europe in the 17th century (see above). This situation is unlikely to change significantly unless, as seen in many waste management projects over the past 20 years, a combination of enhanced separate collection processes, efficient mechanical-biological treatment, and financial incentives to reduce landfilling, strengthen recycling efforts, and promote renewable energy schemes are implemented globally.

The effect on the recycling rates actually realized usually remains modest and therefore sobering, as people in the respective disposal area have “no awareness,” “no financial incentives” or do not have the necessary equipment for the systematic separation of different material flows in households and businesses and, after an initial euphoria, quickly fall back into the old pattern of “letting the waste disappear” into their local uncontrolled dumping grounds. For this reason, in low- and middle-income economies in particular, simple waste separation systems, such as the separate collection of dry and wet materials that can be transported in the same vehicle, should be promoted in a targeted manner.

In Central Europe, a lot of municipal waste is collected separately—especially paper/cardboard, glass, plastics, and metals (rates of up to 30–60% are possible; for some fractions even significantly higher). Nevertheless, recycling losses from industrial process companies are considerable, as contamination, technical limitations, and inefficient processes restrict the return of recyclable materials [6].

EU Regulation (EU) 2019/1597 addresses this under the term “average losses” by prescribing a standardized methodology for recording recycling losses [8]. The current circular economy is reaching its limits here—an impetus to look for new approaches. Recycling is limited on the one hand by the often lamented “lack of awareness” and/or “lack of financial incentives,” and on the other by technical circumstances—according to the cascading principle (recycling cycles for plastic, paper, and glass are limited; metal and organic materials could theoretically be recycled indefinitely).

A crucial step toward transformation lies in overcoming the traditional separation between product manufacturing and waste management. Recognizing the paradigm shift required for this transformation involves identifying four fundamental attitudes and actions that underpin effective waste management. These attitudes correspond to the four structures of consciousness—archaic, magical, mythical, and rational—described by Jean Gebser (1905–1972) in his seminal work The Ever-Present Origin. Below, we outline these four basic approaches to waste management, each characterized by a representative example connected to Jean Gebser’s consciousness approach [9]:

1. Drop: Waste is seen as a physical burden and disposed of wherever you happen to be—a purely selective behavior. This form of waste management can be described as body-related archaic in line with the expression “Just throw it away!” Waste is thrown away without feeling, seeing, or thinking about the consequences.
2. Make it disappear: Waste is made invisible through simple measures such as mass burning without energy recovery or burial (dumping). This form of waste management can be described as emotionally magical in line with the childish expression “What I can't see isn't there.” The current negative impact of waste is felt, but measures beyond “out of sight out of mind” are neither seen nor considered.
3. Combat: Waste is visualized and recognized as a hygiene, odor, and aesthetic problem. It is tackled locally with technical solutions (e.g., the first incineration plant in Hamburg in 1896), but without “thinking” of a structured and comprehensive waste management system covering all functions (see next stage). From this structure of consciousness, waste must be fought mythically, like a dragon. However, there is still no systematic concept for an entire region behind this.
4. Manage: From this structure, the disposal of waste is organized rationally in systems consisting of many elements that can be combined with each other, and the idea of a cross-regional circular economy is added. However, waste management itself is considered to be even more separate from the product and energy industries.

These four basic approaches to waste management make it clear that there can be no isolated “integral” waste management on its own. Instead, a synthesis is needed that combines raw material extraction, product manufacture, trade, consumption, and waste management, as it is always the same material, just in different physical and chemical states and stages of utilization.

If waste management is integrated into product and/or energy management, something completely new is created. The term “aduct economy” was proposed in [3] [10] for this fully integrated form of material management from raw material extraction to waste disposal. The “a” before the -duct (alpha privativum) indicates that it is “the same” material, the use of which is organized in an integrated approach to product and waste management. aduct thus also describes a system in which waste is not only recycled, but also serves as a direct, fully integrated resource for new products (in a final stage as “eternal circle”—a true circular economy). The global goal is to massively reduce the extraction of raw materials without downcycling and thus sustainably relieve the burden on the earth.

The processes presented—from the Schu-Bio process to pyrolysis and mechanical-chemical decomposition to the replicator—show a way in which waste management can leave the stages of “dropping,” “disappearing,” “combating,” and “managing” behind. The aduct economy, as a synthesis of all material phases, could significantly reduce the global extraction of raw materials by processing waste and reutilizing it in the form of raw materials. The atomic and molecular components of waste are utilized directly for the manufacture of new products—similar to chemical recycling. Nevertheless, the “affordability” must be examined, as well as the question of whether the proposed technical solution can be financed by the end users [20]. Only then would the vision of a “true” circular economy be fulfilled—an approach that reduces the burden on the earth and places sustainability at the center.

1. Grooterhorst A.: The quintessence of sustainability. Part I: The emergence of the term and its distortion. ReSource, pp. 4-11, 4/2011.
2. Grooterhorst A.: The quintessence of sustainability. Part II: From the indeterminate environment to the absolute whole. ReSource, pp. 4-11, 1/2012.
3. Grooterhorst A.: The quintessence of sustainability. Part III: A model for the preservation of the EARTH and for the benefit of mankind. ReSource, pp. 15-23, 3/2012.
4. Grooterhorst, A.: Trapped in the circular economy - or - waste management and strong sustainability. Refuse and waste, 10, pp. 493-500, 2010.
5. Grooterhorst, A.: Trapped in the circular economy - or - waste management and strong sustainability. Refuse and waste, 10, pp. 493-500, 2010.
6. Eurostat (2024): Waste Statistics - Total Waste Generation in the EU-27, 2022.
7. Federal Statistical Office (2024): Waste generation in Germany 2022.
8. EU Regulation (EU) 2019/1597: Delegated Regulation supplementing Directive 2008/98/EC with regard to a common methodology for measuring recycling losses (average losses).
9. Grooterhorst, A.: The four waste management sectors - or - What comes after product and waste management? Refuse and waste, 07, pp. 323-330, 2010.
10. Grooterhorst, A.: The myth of waste avoidance. Waste is not the cause of waste. Müllmagazin, 2, pp. 30-35, 2009
11. [EU Regulation: Waste Catalogue Regulation (AVV), Annex, waste code numbers for municipal waste.
12. Müller, T. et al. (2023): Biotechnological processes for waste decomposition: The Schu-Bio concept. Journal of Sustainable Technologies, 15(3), pp. 45-60.
13. Schmidt, K. (2022): Pyrolysis as the key to the circular economy - losses in industrial recycling. Abfall und Ressourcen, 8(2), pp. 112-125
14. Schmidt, K. (2022): Pyrolysis as the key to the circular economy. Abfall und Ressourcen, 8(2), pp. 112-125.
15. Fischer, L. (2023): Mechanical-chemical processes in waste management. Recycling Technology, 12(4), pp. 89-102.
16. Lee, J. & Patel, R. (2024): Atomic Waste Sorting: Towards a Replicator Economy. Materials Science Review, 29(1), pp. 78-92.
17. Roddenberry, G. (Executive Producer). (1987, September 28). Encounter at Farpoint [Television series episode]. In Star Trek: The Next Generation. Paramount Pictures.
18. Krauss, L. M. (2007): The Physics of Star Trek. Basic Books.
19. Otto, E. C. (2012): Green Speculations: Science Fiction and Transformative Environmentalism. Ohio State University Press.

20. Dorvil, P. (2024): Circular economy is also science and above all business. Waste and rubbish, 08/2024, p.470.

     

    The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Investment Bank.