Education for the circular economy in higher education: an overview of the current state

Abstract

Purpose

Higher education institutions and their lecturers are strategic agents and main drivers that contribute to circular economy transition. This requires them to understand the key circular economy competencies and how to integrate circular economy holistically into their curricula with the suitable teaching and learning approaches. This study aims to support them by providing an overview on the characteristics of education for the circular economy (ECE) and suggestions to lecturers to further develop their curricula.

Design/methodology/approach

The data consisted of scientific articles (n = 22) describing circular economy courses in higher education. Qualitative content analysis with quantitative features was performed on the selected articles to answer the research question.

Findings

The findings confirm that the system’s focus is the key issue in ECE. However, to integrate circular economy holistically into the curricula, ECE should be implemented more widely in the context of different industries and market contexts to find innovative teaching and learning approaches. The demand side needs to be incorporated in the courses, as systemic transformation is also about transforming consumption. All levels of implementation and circular economy objectives should be included in courses to promote systems thinking. In addition, innovative forms of real workplace interaction should be increased.

Originality/value

As ECE has started to emerge as a new field of study, this article provides the first integrated overview of the topic.

Citation

Renfors, S.-M. (2024), "Education for the circular economy in higher education: an overview of the current state", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2023-0270

Introduction

The concept of circular economy has become extremely popular since it has been heavily promoted by policymakers as a solution to reduce harm to the environment (Korhonen et al., 2018; Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018). Recently, circular economy has also started to gain more interest in higher education because educating people is considered the best way to start transitioning from a linear economy towards a circular economy (Tiippana-Usvasalo et al., 2023). This means that higher education institutions are increasingly seen as strategic agents and main drivers that support circular economy transition (Bugallo-Rodríguez and Vega-Marcote, 2020; de la Torre et al., 2021; Mendoza et al., 2019; Qu et al., 2020). In practice, they are responsible for contributing to this transition through their curricula and providing students with a set of competencies that ensure a more sustainable future (de la Torre et al., 2021; Qu et al., 2020). Therefore, higher education institutions have been increasingly integrating circular economy in their curricula and developing updated competencies (Giannoccaro et al., 2021).

Due to the significant role of higher education institutions in circular economy transition, education for the circular economy (ECE) has emerged as a new field of study. It describes the educational approaches for lecturers to accelerate the transition towards the circular economy (Kirchherr and Piscicelli, 2019). Indeed, lecturers play a key role in this transition, but their role has been neglected (Giannoccaro et al., 2021; Kirchherr and Piscicelli, 2019; Marouli, 2016). Their job is not easy as the circular economy is a complex topic to teach, and it requires much more than just topical or issue-related knowledge (del Vecchio et al., 2021; Manshoven and Gillabel, 2021). Teaching circular economy is challenging because of the systemic complexity and the involvement and contribution of a variety of different stakeholders (de la Torre et al., 2021; Giannoccaro et al., 2021). Due to these features, purely theoretical teaching does not allow the development of competencies and adequate learning for circular economy (de las Mercedes and Alvarez-Risco, 2022). Therefore, a versatile learning environment is required that allows the development of professionals with competencies to apply and manage circular economy (de las Mercedes and Alvarez-Risco, 2022; Lanz et al., 2019).

Because the circular economy is a novel topic, the literature on ECE in higher education institutions is limited and fragmented (de la Torre et al., 2021; Giannoccaro et al., 2021). Previous studies have focused on specific disciplines and described how a certain circular economy course is taught in a single institution. There are no studies providing a clear and integrated overview of ECE in higher education. For this reason, further studies are needed to understand the topic holistically (Kopnina and Padfield, 2021).

This article contributes to this research gap and explores the characteristics of ECE in higher education. To be able to accelerate the transition towards the circular economy, lecturers are required to understand how to integrate circular economy holistically into their curricula. This involves understanding the key circular economy competencies and the most suitable teaching and learning approaches to educate future circular economy professionals. Therefore, the aim of the article is to provide an overview of the characteristics of ECE and suggestions to lecturers to further design their curricula.

This article contributes to the formulation of ECE as a field of study. Its results support higher education institutions to improve the quality of ECE and their lecturers to develop their curricula and teaching. The lecturers’ process of integrating circular economy into their curricula and courses is facilitated, and they can better plan for their courses for circular economy to provide a relevant set of competencies.

Literature review

Circular economy

Circular economy is seen as a new school of thought in sustainable development and a tool for companies to implement in practice (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Murray et al., 2017). Circular economy aims at an in-depth transformation of the way resources are used; resources are reused and kept in a loop of production and usage (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Preston, 2012; Urbinati et al., 2017). It is a system-level production and consumption model of economy and an antonym of a linear economy (Murray et al., 2017; Sorin and Sivarajah, 2021). Thus, it is a systemic transformation that involves transforming production, services and consumption. It is important to note that circular economy is not a preventative approach but rather a restorative approach aiming at repairing previous damage by designing better systems (Murray et al., 2017).

The most popular definition of circular economy is that of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013, p. 7):

Circular economy is an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design. It replaces the “end-of-life” concept with restoration, shifts towards the use of renewable energy, eliminates the use of toxic chemicals, which impair reuse, and aims at the elimination of waste through the superior design of materials, products, systems, and, within this, business models.

Another widely used definition comes from Kirchherr et al. (2017, p. 224) who define circular economy as follows:

A circular economy describes an economic system, based on business models which replace the end-of-life concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption with the aim to accomplish sustainable development.

Furthermore, Murray et al. (2017, p. 369) define circular economy as follows:

[. . .] an economic model wherein planning, resourcing, procurement, production and reprocessing are designed and managed to maximise ecosystem functioning and human well-being.

In circular economy, design and innovation are the core elements (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). This means that designing, selecting and transforming materials and products, supply chains and overarching industrial systems change in a circular economy (Velenturf and Purnell, 2021). Circular economy solutions entail rethinking product design, often supported by three principles of reduction, reuse and recycle (D’amato and Korhonen, 2021; Ghisellini et al., 2016). Indeed, developing innovative business models to change resource use is a key tool to support circular transformation (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Velenturf and Purnell, 2021). Furthermore, circular economy implementation demands changes and cooperation of different stakeholders (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Velenturf and Purnell, 2021).

As circular economy is an economic system, the transition towards it needs to occur at three levels of research and implementation:

1. micro (products, companies, consumers);

2. meso (supply chains, industrial symbiosis, company clusters); and

3. macro level (cities, regions, nations, governments) (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Kirchherr et al., 2017; Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018).

Therefore, it is essential to involve multiple stakeholders to facilitate circularity, although the change mainly occurs at the micro level. As said, circular economy involves entire networks of production and calls for the involvement of all players, increased collaboration between the private and public sectors, a cross-sectoral approach and a broader perspective (Murray et al., 2017; Pattanaro and Gente, 2017).

It is also necessary to note that a successful circular economy contributes to economic, environmental and social objectives (Korhonen et al., 2018). Firstly, its environmental objective is to reduce the production–consumption system virgin material and energy inputs and waste and emission outputs. Secondly, the economic objective is to reduce the economic production–consumption system’s costs related to raw material, energy and waste management, as well as innovate new products and marketing opportunities for businesses. Thirdly, the social objective is sharing economy, cooperative and communal use of materials, increased employment as well as participative decision-making.

Education for the circular economy

ECE as a field of research is still in its infancy. The concept was introduced for the first time by Kirchherr and Piscicelli (2019) when describing a course designed to present undergraduates with the circular economy concept. ECE deals with the role of higher education teaching in supporting the circular economy transition by examining how its principles are integrated across disciplines and their curricula as well as what teaching and learning approaches are the most suitable to its contents (Giannoccaro et al., 2021). Thus, the existing literature on ECE has explored how circular economy can be approached and integrated into higher education. The literature has mainly focused on the issues of developing single circular economy courses and examining the characteristics of the teaching and learning approaches best fitting to develop circular economy competencies in these courses.

As circular economy is a systemic transformation and complex interaction between economic, environmental and social systems, the system’s focus is the key issue in ECE (de la Torre et al., 2021; Marouli, 2016). Thus, students should understand how the environment, economy, society and culture interrelate. Systems thinking also supports the students to consider interdependencies, multiple stakeholder perspectives, causes and effects of system changes, causalities and environmental influences (Whalen et al., 2018). As Marouli (2016) states, ECE is integrative, which means different bodies of knowledge and different viewpoints should be integrated into teaching and learning. Furthermore, Bugallo-Rodríguez and Vega-Marcote (2020) point out that moving towards a circular economy requires personal changes in being, knowing and acting. Due to the systemic nature of the circular economy, changes must occur, not only at the individual but also at the social-structural level (Marouli, 2016). This means that students should be able to get involved in these issues and understand the elemental connection between individual actions and social problems (Bugallo-Rodríguez and Vega-Marcote, 2020; Marouli, 2016).

In addition, the principles of value-neutrality and non-dogmatism are embraced in ECE (de la Torre et al., 2021; Kirchherr and Piscicelli, 2019). As de la Torre et al. (2021) suggest, education is value-neutral, i.e. not biased towards a certain sustainability dimension. Education should also introduce both the challenges and strengths of the circular economy and not approach the concept with too much enthusiasm or scepticism (de la Torre et al., 2021; Kirchherr and Piscicelli, 2019). Marouli (2016, p. 7) continues that ECE “should become a collaborative practice with the common good as goals”. This means that an education that supports the transition to a circular economy includes democratic dialog and co-learning between industry and academia to enhance collaborative capabilities (Giannoccaro et al., 2021; Kioupi et al., 2021; Marouli, 2016).

To achieve these goals, ECE needs to adopt a competence approach to curriculum development. Competence is defined as the students’ ability to do something after completing the learning activity (Mochizuki and Fadeeva, 2010). Curricula concerning circular economy focus on the competencies the students are expected to possess at the end of the course (Giannoccaro et al., 2021). This is crucial as professionals with the right competencies are needed to make the circular economy transition (Janssens et al., 2021). In fact, it is estimated that everyone will be a circular economy professional who applies circular economy solutions at work (Silvennoinen and Pajunen, 2019; Tiippana-Usvasalo et al., 2023). This requires a new focus on the competencies as the shift towards a circular economy depends on their availability (de las Mercedes and Alvarez-Risco, 2022; Hall and Velez-Colby, 2018; Sumter et al., 2021).

So far, a few researchers have concentrated on competencies relevant for circular economy. As stated by Giannoccaro et al. (2021), researchers have paid very limited attention to identifying and defining circular economy competencies. The most prominent approach is by Janssens et al. (2021), who explored which competencies for a circular economy are considered essential by regional actors. In addition, Burger et al. (2019) compared circular- and non-circular-oriented occupations in terms of skills and abilities. A recent study by Sumter et al. (2021) identified nine key circular competencies for design.

Previous studies show that circular economy requires more resource management and systems thinking competencies compared to the rest of the economy (Janssens et al., 2021). Indeed, these two competencies along with circular production and product design, circular business models, circular economy communication and circular economy collaboration are defined as the foundation for the development of circular economy-based teaching and learning approaches and curricula (Burger et al., 2019; Giannoccaro et al., 2021; Janssens et al., 2021; Sumter et al., 2021). In addition, green marketing and market knowledge, circular impact assessment, circular user engagement and circular materials and manufacturing are defined as other circular economy competencies by previous studies (Giannoccaro et al., 2021; Janssens et al., 2021; Sumter et al., 2021).

Methodology

The data of this study consisted of scientific articles describing circular economy courses with the developed competencies and teaching and learning approaches in higher education. Firstly, Scopus and Web of Science databases were selected as sources to trace articles for analysis. To identify potentially relevant full-length articles, “Circular Economy” AND “Teaching” and “Circular Economy” AND “Learning” in the fields “abstract”, “keywords” and “title” were used to collect the data. A total of 144 scientific articles were published in Scopus and 71 in Web of Science related to “Circular Economy” AND “Teaching” as well as 546 articles in Scopus and 431 in Web of Science related to “Circular Economy” AND “Learning” were identified.

Next, the eligibility of the articles was assessed, and every article was considered carefully to see whether they were related to the research objective. After identifying 55 articles as potentially relevant based on their abstracts, keywords and titles, a set of questions for quality assessment was formulated as follows:

Q1.

Does the article focus on circular economy teaching and learning in higher education?

Q2.

Does the article describe a concrete example of a circular economy course in higher education?

Q3.

Does the article provide information about the developed competencies when teaching and learning circular economy in higher education?

Q4.

Does the article provide information about the circular economy teaching and learning approaches?

This narrowed down the results to a total of 22 articles, which included the established inclusion criteria and were considered relevant to the objective of the study. If an article did not provide a sufficient description of the course or answers to the defined research question, it was excluded from further analysis.

Altogether, 22 articles fulfilling the assessment criteria were extracted to an Excel spreadsheet for review to organise articles and further coding. These included 18 peer-reviewed scientific articles, three conference papers and one book chapter. The sample was not limited to scientific articles as these conference papers and the book chapter provided a well-described example of ECE in higher education.

The study is a qualitative study with quantitative features. It uses a directed content analysis to describe the characteristics of ECE and, when relevant, a summative content analysis involving the counting of keywords followed by interpretation (cf. Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). Firstly, summative content analysis was used to get a list of content related to the general information of the published articles. Initial coding dimensions were developed deductively, and the theory of circular economy and ECE supported the formation of the coding scheme. The coding categories were the author’s name, name of the journal, year of publication, country of the first author, course discipline, course level, interdisciplinarity, circular economy objectives, system level of implementation and cooperation with external partners. Keywords and related content in course descriptions were identified. The keywords were coded and counted when they were explicitly mentioned by the authors themselves or when the descriptions of courses were clearly connected to the categories of coding. Synonyms for one approach were coded as the same (e.g. group work and teamwork). To analyse the codes, absolute frequencies were counted providing descriptive statistics.

Then, the analysis went beyond mere word counts with their descriptions and interpretations. Recurring patterns were revealed concerning competencies and teaching and learning approaches. The course descriptions were studied several times in their entirety to acquire a sense of the whole and to identify the essential features of the content for further analysis. Secondly, the data were coded manually based on the research question. The codes were analysed, refined and combined to form a core group of broader themes representing the key circular economy competencies and teaching and learning approaches.

Results

Details of the circular economy articles

The analysed articles were published between the years 2016–2023 (Table 1). The publishing year of the articles was not limited when selecting the articles, which means that ECE is an emerging topic. The first articles were published in the year 2016, and the number of articles has been growing steadily since 2019. As the review was conducted in April 2023, it includes only the first months of the year 2023.

The selected articles were mainly published in the following journals: Sustainability (23%), Journal of Cleaner Production (14%) and Resources, Conservation and Recycling (9%). Other journals were Australian Journal of Environmental Education, Energies, Environmental Education Research, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Journal of Chemical Education, Journal of Industrial Ecology and Urban Planning. Analysing the national background of the first authors, articles have been written by authors from Europe, e.g. The Netherlands (23%), Spain (18%) and the UK (18%). In addition, other countries of origin were Austria, Belgium, Finland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Turkey. Surprisingly, only one author derived from outside Europe: Brazil.

The main context of the articles was in the following fields of education: engineering (60%), architecture, arts and design (29%), business (20%) and environmental sciences and agriculture (20%). One-third (29%) of the articles introduced interdisciplinary courses where students were mixed. Usually, these courses were implemented jointly with engineering and business students or architecture, engineering and business students. The courses were implemented at bachelor’s (57%) and master’s (48%) levels, some of the courses were participated by PhD students, industry representatives and policy makers.

Competencies in circular economy courses

The environmental and economic aims of the circular economy were preferred in courses. Thus, resource management competencies were deemed of utmost importance in the selected course descriptions. They included addressing resource challenges and scarcity, using materials efficiently and critically, minimising and optimising resource use, reusing materials as well as evaluating alternatives and their impacts on the ecosystems. These were often related to developing solutions for waste prevention and reuse, minimising the use of energy and water consumption, as well as preventing food waste and adopting sustainable energy sources.

Systems thinking competence was frequently mentioned as a significant circular economy competence. It was proposed that applying a systemic approach to investigating the complexity of environmental and societal challenges, systems and interactions is one of the key competencies in circular economy. Students need to consider all sustainability aims and understand their interdependence. They should be able to involve stakeholders and identify their needs, perspectives and concerns when making decisions. Students should be able to establish a shared understanding of problems and solve problems collaboratively. According to the course descriptions, systems thinking also promotes students’ consideration of a wide range of impacts related to the decisions: how their decisions affect the other parts of the system.

Another key competence relates to circular design, i.e. designing circular products and production processes. The authors referred to eco-design strategies to design new product and service concepts considering environmental impacts in their design. Designing adaptable products with circularity in mind, e.g. designing for recycling and reusing materials by giving them a second life as new products, was considered a significant competence. In addition, the 9R framework for the circular economy (Potting et al., 2017) was mentioned frequently as a tool to understand circular production and increase the circularity of products. Applying the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to systematically assess the environmental impacts of each decision associated with all stages of the life cycle of a product, service or process was also highlighted in many course descriptions.

In addition, the authors often referred to competencies in designing and setting up circular business models to offer a competitive advantage. It was argued that it is necessary to understand how business models can contribute to a company’s profitability and what are the environmental impacts of circular business models as well as their opportunities and challenges at the company level. Furthermore, it was considered essential to possess business environment competencies, i.e. understanding the contexts, drivers and barriers of change as well as financial, market and business issues related to circular economy. For example, students should be able to identify business opportunities and real-life challenges facing businesses as well as to understand laws and regulations to promote circular economy. In addition, creating marketing plans as well as promoting and advertising green products emerged as important competencies in only a few articles.

Circular collaboration was identified as a key competence. To collaborate and build partnerships with companies, understand interdependencies between companies and share resources to reduce environmental impacts were stressed. In addition, strategic competence emerged from the findings. It was referred to as the ability to develop circular economy strategies, involve relevant stakeholders in the strategy development and implementation as well as evaluate the impact of the strategies. In addition, value thinking competence, i.e. promoting circular economy values and examining the values underlying the problem, was deemed relevant in circular economy education. Furthermore, critical thinking competence, i.e. analysing critically the context and available viewpoints to make informed decisions as well as assessing alternative ideas and solutions, was also seen as a relevant competence. Additionally, creativity, i.e., the ability to solve problems by applying creative solutions, and reflective competence, i.e. the ability to understand one’s own actions, were mentioned in some course descriptions.

Characteristics of circular economy teaching and learning

Various active and experiential teaching and learning approaches were highlighted in the course descriptions. When adopting these teaching and learning approaches, the course structure involved both theory and practical research using real-life examples. These engaged students with problematic situations and learning through building on prior knowledge and experiences to make decisions on the actions. The focus of the courses was on teaching students to efficiently solve real problems by applying theory to real-world experiences in the classroom and/or workplace. In practice, the courses included lectures related to the main course contents as well as practical activities applying this knowledge. It was reminded that these two supplement each other to achieve better learning outcomes. Furthermore, flipped classroom methodology was applied in two courses by adapting the course structure, resources and training materials.

The use of case-based and project-based teaching and learning approaches was emphasised in the course descriptions. Teaching and learning by case studies was reported in 41% and projects in 27% of the courses. In one article, the authors also referred to challenge-based learning, i.e. applying learning to a real situation, posed as a challenge, as well as in another article to situated learning with the learning environment reflecting real-life settings. When comparing the developed competencies and the teaching and learning approaches, it was noted that case-based learning was seen as a tool to address the circular economy challenges from a systemic perspective and increase students’ critical thinking skills. Instead, project-based learning was considered as a tool for empowering students to act on knowledge. It was emphasised that projects enable interaction with the industry, gain insight into real-life examples and apply knowledge into practice. In other words, the course descriptions maintained that the main benefit of project-based learning is that it allows students to apply the theoretical concepts of circular economy in real situations. This motivated them and stimulated their learning, enabling them to better understand and reflect on the circular economy issues. Projects were seen to develop not only their technical competencies but also transversal competencies, e.g. teamwork, leadership and creativity.

In addition, simulation-based teaching and learning approaches (including serious games, business games, game-playing events, tournaments, role-playing, board games, living labs, design studios and laboratory exercises) were deemed essential, and they were integrated into almost half (45%) of the courses. It was suggested that simulations increase students’ awareness of the logic of the circular economy and understanding of its basic principles. They stimulate students’ strategic and critical thinking, problem-solving, decision-making and long-term planning competencies. The course descriptions also highlighted those simulations support students in better understanding of systemic complexity including the macro level issues. For, e.g. games are typically played in groups, which improves students’ understanding of different perspectives and their ability to think holistically considering the connections between different actors and sectors. Furthermore, it was stated that simulations increase students’ engagement and encourage experimentation because they provide students with a chance to learn by designing and solving various scenarios and by putting themselves in a management position in a real company.

If the course included a case study, a project or a simulation, half of these (50%) were related to the micro level of research and implementation, in other words to single companies (e.g. clothing companies, supermarkets, food producers). For example, case studies, projects and simulations in product planning and development, e.g. developing new products from used materials, were often integrated into the courses. The meso level of circular economy implementation was incorporated in one-third (36%) of the courses. At the meso level, case studies, projects and simulations concerned, e.g. transportation systems, agri-food supply chains, food chains, energy systems or water cycles. The macro level was not regarded as a popular level of implementation in the courses. Only 14% of the case studies, projects and simulations considered the macro level. These were related to policy development and urban regions.

Team-based learning, i.e. learning in groups and teams of students, was emphasised in all (100%) courses. It was stressed that learning occurs when students discuss in groups how to solve a problem, which means that the courses often included discussions and debates. However, some courses involved a combination of individual and group assignments. In addition, written assignments and presentations were an integral part of the course assessment. Learning was assessed with a written exam only in one course. The course descriptions also suggested that it is important to compose multicultural teams and teams having students from different disciplinary backgrounds to increase the impact of learning. Working in such teams was seen to promote the acquisition of a wide range of knowledge and facilitate work.

The course descriptions call attention to the need for a co-learning environment to share knowledge and encourage mutual learning. However, only one-third of the courses (36%) included cooperation with external partners outside the classroom because, on many occasions, the courses provided real-world experiences in the classroom by studying an existing case study or a game. Having a closer look at the co-learning environment, it consisted of various levels of cooperation starting from internships and joint experiments with the industry to visits and factory tours, which were considered as eye-openers for students. The courses also included mentoring, pitching, industry interviews, stakeholder discussions and expert panels. It was concluded that not only students but also industry partners learn new ideas for improving their sustainable business. However, it was noted that the needs of the stakeholders can complicate cooperation, which is the reason why these should be carefully considered in course planning.

Discussion

The findings confirm that the systems focus is the key issue in ECE. Because the transition towards the circular economy occurs at micro, meso and macro levels of implementation, these three levels should be incorporated into circular economy courses. It is also critical to include all three circular economy objectives in courses and understand their connections. Circular economy is also characterised by a plurality of voices with different perspectives, which means that ECE should be integrative and involve extensive dialogue. In addition, ECE is about co-learning in collaboration with various stakeholders to become a collaborative practice. As a result, it is critical that the selected teaching and learning approaches fit the systemic nature of circular economy, increase students’ understanding of how to accelerate the systemic transformation and efficiently solve real social problems.

The analysis identifies five challenges in ECE to integrate circular economy holistically into the curricula. Firstly, the findings confirm that ECE has focused its attention on productive industries with European engineering education dominating the selected courses. This has very much shaped the debate on ECE. Therefore, it could be argued that ECE should be implemented more widely in the context of different industries and market contexts to understand it fully because they generate different circular transformations. For example, service industries have extensive negative environmental impacts, and circular economy is increasingly considered a possible toolbox to ensure sustainable development in these industries (Davies and Egas, 2022; Einarsson and Sorin, 2020). However, there were no courses focusing on these industries.

Secondly, the findings stressed that circular economy has been taught mostly from a supply-side perspective, neglecting the demand side, even if circular economy is a systemic transformation that involves transforming production, services and consumption. Although the focus has been on micro level of implementation, consumers as a group of stakeholders at the micro level have been forgotten. It should be noted that consumers play a key role in promoting circular transformation (Nocca et al., 2023; Sørensen and Bærenholdt, 2020). They are a strength in the transition towards the circular economy, which means that increasing understanding, promoting and encouraging circular consumption behaviour should be considered a key competence. As stated by Velenturf and Purnell (2021), circular economy should enable demand-driven resource use and sharing based consumption, but this was not visible in the course descriptions. As the demand side was neglected, circular communication did not emerge in the results as a key competence. For this reason, it is recommended that the demand-side, circular engagement and circular communication competence (cf. Sumter et al., 2021) are increasingly incorporated into course contents, case studies and projects.

Third, only in two courses, the social objectives of the circular economy were highlighted by including the sharing economy and social entrepreneurship in the course content. This means that to promote systems thinking competencies, the social objective should be given more attention in circular economy education. As Kirchherr et al. (2017) note, economic prosperity and advantages for companies, as well as environmental quality and less resource consumption for the environment, prevail as circular economy objectives, leading to a lack of social considerations. On many occasions, environmental and economic objectives were argued to have social implications and contribute to societal challenges and trends, but the social objective itself was rarely the focus of the courses, case studies or projects. Thus, the findings are in line with those of Giannoccaro et al. (2021) that social objectives of the circular economy are missing in higher education.

Fourthly, it is suggested to ensure that all levels of implementation are integrated into circular economy courses to promote systems thinking competencies. The findings demonstrate that the micro and meso levels of implementation prevailed in the courses, their case studies and projects. If the course included a case study, a project or a simulation, it was mainly connected to the micro level of research and implementation, in other words, to single companies or to the meso level of research and implementation, e.g. to value chains or industrial symbiosis. The macro level, i.e. introducing students to the likely macroeconomic impacts of the circular economy and to policy instruments that could be adopted to further amplify the macro benefits of the circular economy, should be integrated into the courses.

Fifthly, it is suggested that innovative forms of real workplace interaction should be increased. The findings show that real-world experiences were often gained in the classroom by studying existing case studies or playing games. Real co-learning and workplace interaction with stakeholders outside the classroom was often neglected, even if these are nominated as typical features for ECE since collaboration with local stakeholders promotes social transformation (Burger et al., 2019; Giannoccaro et al., 2021; Marouli, 2016). In addition, the interdisciplinarity of the course implementation with mixed student groups needs to be enhanced for students to increase systems thinking competencies and acknowledge different perspectives, views and values. Interdisciplinarity is the key characteristic in ECE (Hall and Velez-Colby, 2018; Marouli, 2016), but only one-third (29%) of the selected articles introduced interdisciplinary courses with mixed students.

Conclusions

It can be concluded that more innovative approaches in ECE are needed to integrate circular economy holistically into the curricula. This information can be used for inspiration in designing new curricula and courses in circular economy in higher education. This is very topical because new degree programmes on circular economy are emerging rapidly. Lecturers can also reflect the findings against their existing curricula and courses, their learning outcomes and the used teaching and learning approaches. In addition, understanding the required competencies supports an increasing understanding of the new circular economy job profiles and changes in the existing ones across industries.

It can be considered as a limitation of this research that it was not possible to fully connect the teaching and learning approaches with the competencies using this data. The selected articles mainly focused on a specific circular economy aspect, such as product design, and on the extent to which certain teaching and learning approaches have aided students’ understanding of the processes and practices of the circular economy. In many cases, the selected articles did not adopt an analytical approach to the teaching and learning approaches but described the course implementation step-by-step, showing an example of how competencies in a specific circular economy aspect can be improved by applying a certain teaching and learning approach.

As proposed also by Lagrasta et al. (2021) and Manshoven and Gillabel (2021), future research should focus on the assessment of the effectiveness of teaching and learning approaches in terms of circular economy competencies and knowledge transfer. Therefore, further studies with a focus on these matters are suggested because more research is needed to explore the connection between competencies and teaching and learning approaches, as well as a more analytical approach to critically examine the effectiveness of using these specific approaches to improve their use.

As Kirchherr and Piscicelli (2019) have pointed out, a dialogue on ECE increases the quality of teaching the circular economy and supports the contribution of education institutions and their lecturers in circular transition. Thus, the results provide insights into required competencies and teaching and learning approaches for further structuring the debate on ECE.

Table 1.

The main characteristics of the selected articles

First author	Year	Country	Keywords related to competencies	Keywords related to teaching and learning approach
Alves	2017	Portugal	Remanufacturing, recycling, eco-efficiency, eco-design, LCA	Project-based learning, report, presentation, discussion, blogs, prototypes
Bakirlioglu	2021	Turkey	Design for circular economy, material exploration, innovation, recycling, upcycling, reuse, remanufacture, waste prevention, business model, collaboration	Collaborative learning, project-based learning, internship, mentoring, masterclass, workshop, open education resource, group discussion, presentation, pitching, meeting with industry partners
de la Torre	2021	Spain	Sustainable energy, energy optimisation, transportation systems, decision-making, systems thinking	Simulation-based learning, serious gaming, scenario
Fraccascia	2021	The Netherlands	Industrial symbiosis, business development, waste management, information flows	Business gaming, challenge-based learning, case-based essay, written exam
Gomes	2022	Brazil	Circular design, environmental performance assessment, LCA	Learning by Doing, project, case study, lecture, simulation, design class, workshop, presentation
Gonzalez-Dominguez	2020	Spain	Product design and development, innovation, eco-design, LCA, packaging and distribution, resource optimisation, project management and leadership	Collaborative project-based learning, theory session, report
Khoury	2023	UK	Urban water cycle, energy footprint, circular strategies: reduce, reuse, recovery	Serious gaming, tournament, scenario, case study, discussion, expert panel
Kioupi	2021	UK	Product design, material criticality	Active learning, experiential learning, serious gaming, workshop, discussion
Kirchherr	2019	The Netherlands	CE concept, product design, circular business models, eco-industrial parks, macro-systemic effects, policy instruments, critical thinking	Problem-based learning, lecture, guest speaker, excursion, gaming, simulation, scenario, presentation, discussion
Kopnina	2019	The Netherlands	Circular products and production, green marketing	Classroom ethnography, case-based learning, assignment, essay
Kopnina	2022	The Netherlands	Circular products and production, green marketing	Post-qualitative inquiry, corporate case study, role-play game, lecture, debate, presentation
Kowasch	2022	Austria	Eco-efficiency, consumption behaviour, recycling, upcycling and waste prevention	Experiential learning, field trips, lecture, essay, industry interviews, presentation
Lagrasta	2021	Italy	Business model, supply chain, by-products	Problem-based learning, case-based learning, case study, presentation, discussion, flipped classroom
Lanz	2019	Finland	Sustainable production and production systems, product development, manufacturing	Problem-based learning, participatory learning, lecture, workshop, simulation, report
Manshoven	2021	Belgium	Business model, business strategy, entrepreneurship, strategic thinking, critical thinking	Serious gaming, board game, simulation
O’Born	2022	Norway	System thinking, material loops, circular design principles	Active learning, problem-based learning, lecture
Rodriguez-Chueca	2020	Spain	LCA, industrial symbiosis, production processes, waste management, leadership, creativity	Challenge-based learning, flipped classroom, case study, lecture
Sanchez-Romaguera	2016	UK	System thinking, LCA, alternative energy sources and/or sustainable materials, circular design, business models, social and ethical implications	Problem-based learning, project-based learning, collaborative learning, lecture, discussion, presentation, report
Summerton	2019	UK	Systems thinking, manufacturing, life cycle thinking, product design, regulation	Active learning, experiential learning, collaborative learning, workshop, case study, debate, presentation
Wandl	2019	The Netherlands	Regional spatial structures, material flows, waste chains, eco-innovative solutions	Situated learning, studio work, living lab, lecture, workshop, stakeholder discussion, mentoring, presentation
Whalen	2018	Sweden	Systems thinking, material criticality, production of products, strategic thinking	Serious gaming, laboratory exercise, essay
Whitehill	2022	UK	Circular design, waste as a resource, communication, systems thinking, creativity, innovation	Experiential learning, collaborative learning, project, case study, lecture, exhibition, factory tour

Source: Author’s own creation/work