Transitioning from the ‘take-make-dispose’ linear production system to a circular economy can strengthen sustainability, and governments play a vital role. Recent scholarship has investigated policies for circular economy transition, but few studies take a perspective on circularity reform that spans geographies, industries, and product life-cycle stages. This article fills that gap by introducing a policy framework for the circular economy that includes over 100 policy instruments. The framework is developed from a review of 572 studies published in the academic and grey literature, along with policy databases and other documents. The findings are validated and supplemented by data from 33 semi-structured interviews with circular economy experts including scholars, policymakers, and representatives from NGOs and businesses. Derived primarily from the EU context but broadly applicable, the framework categorizes circular economy policies into nine groups. Six groups correspond to stages of the product life-cycle and three are overarching, capturing a holistic perspective mostly lacking in the literature. This study aims to promote a more structured discussion about circular economy policies and provides directions for future research by identifying topics where scholarship is thin. In addition to advancing theory, the framework can also serve as an assessment lens for designing circular economy policies.

@en

Circular economy (CE) and sharing economy (SE) are much discussed concepts but potential links between them have not been examined systematically so far. The concepts’ popularity coupled with a lack of definitional consensus may hinder their potential to advance sustainability transitions. Hence, the first comparative bibliometric study of these two concepts was carried out. It was found that they share notable links in the fields of sustainability, business models, sustainable consumption and governance. Business model literature reveals links mostly in the realms of platform- and service-based activities. The field of SE has a strong consumer focus but, unlike CE, barely addressed rebound effects so far. Governance literature shows a general top-down dynamic driving CE, while SE is considered to be bottom-up. SE is conceptualized as a subset of CE which opens possibilities for mutual enrichment. The findings aim to provoke more dialogue between the CE and SE communities.@en