From Concept to Capital: Why Circular Economy Financing Remains Stuck Despite Multi-Trillion Dollar

Businesses engaging in circular economy models raised nearly $164 billion between 2018 and 2023, yet the global economy remains only 6.9% circular. Investment grew from $10 billion in 2018 to $28 billion in 2023, peaking at $42 billion in 2021—but the failure to surpass that 2021 peak reveals a troubling reality. Despite multi-trillion dollar economic potential, circular economy financing faces structural barriers preventing capital from flowing at the scale needed.

The International Finance Corporation released new Harmonized Circular Economy Finance Guidelines in May 2025, attempting to address what Jamie Fergusson, IFC's Global Director for Climate Business, calls a multi-trillion dollar global economic opportunity. Yet most businesses underestimate the real potential of circular economy activities to boost profitability and secure financing, while financial institutions eager to fund the sector struggle with clarity on what qualifies for investment beyond traditional recycling models.

Understanding why circular economy financing remains constrained—despite obvious economic and environmental benefits—matters for investors, entrepreneurs, and policymakers trying to channel capital toward sustainable business models that actually work.

The Definition Problem Blocking Billions in Capital

Financial institutions can't fund what they can't define. The lack of accepted definitions and standards, combined with knowledge and data gaps, continues impeding large-scale investment in circular economy projects. This definitional ambiguity creates cascading problems throughout the investment process.

When a company claims circular economy credentials, what does that actually mean? Is a rental business model automatically circular? Does using recycled materials qualify? What about products designed for durability but not actual recycling? Without standardized frameworks, investors can't compare opportunities, assess risks, or verify claims—making due diligence prohibitively expensive and uncertain.

The new Harmonized Circular Economy Finance Guidelines aim to solve this by aligning with the European Union's Categorization System and the International Capital Markets Association's Green Bond Principles. They serve as practical tools for financial institutions and corporations to identify, evaluate, and quantify financial flows for circular economy projects. For treasury, loan, or business development officers and investment staff, these guidelines help identify qualifying assets within existing portfolios and new opportunities for circular economy finance products.

Yet guideline publication doesn't automatically solve implementation challenges. Investments mainly go to conventional applications of circularity, like rental and repair, which have existed for decades. High-impact solutions and innovations in design and production received just 4.7% of all investment, despite their potential to eliminate waste and pollution at the source.

This concentration in traditional circular models over innovative solutions reveals that capital flows to familiar, easily understood business models rather than transformative approaches that could deliver greater environmental and economic impact.

The Bankability Gap That Kills Projects

"Bankable" means a project has been structured with sufficient revenue certainty, appropriate risk allocation, and legal protections that commercial lenders will finance it. Most circular economy proposals fail this test not because the underlying economics are flawed but because they haven't been prepared to meet institutional investment standards.

High initial investment costs and low returns are cited as the most critical barriers to circular economy adoption. This aligns with research emphasizing that restructuring existing facilities not originally designed to accommodate circular economy practices creates significant financial and operational challenges. As one interviewee noted regarding a circular initiative: "The initiative involves cost due to restructuring a decade-old plant built a decade ago when there was no knowledge of circular economy."

Additionally, firms face high uncertainty related to revenue outcomes. Traditional linear business models generate predictable cash flows from selling products. Circular models based on service provision, product-as-a-service, or material reclamation involve more complex revenue streams that investors struggle to model and underwrite.

The circular economy represents a transformative economic model for achieving sustainable development while reducing resource dependence and promoting the regeneration of natural ecosystems. Circular economy models can lower operating costs by reducing inputs and waste while enhancing national economic resilience by reducing vulnerability to shortages of critical raw materials, volatile pricing, and supply chain disruptions.

Yet translating these theoretical benefits into bankable financial projections requires data, track records, and modeling approaches that don't exist for many innovative circular models. This creates a chicken-and-egg problem: projects need capital to demonstrate viability, but capital requires demonstrated viability before deploying.

The Investment Gap Numbers Tell The Story

Europe faces a circular economy investment gap of around €29 billion per year until 2027—an overall increase of 21% above baseline financing. More comprehensive assessments extending to 2040 indicate considerably higher investment needs and considerably larger financing gaps for implementing circular economy across the European Union.

These aren't small numbers that can be filled through government grants or philanthropic capital. Closing these gaps requires mobilizing private institutional capital at scale—pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, and commercial banks deploying billions based on risk-adjusted return expectations.

The shift to circularity will require significant upfront investment, with estimates of €230 billion needed to adapt physical and infrastructure assets in the built environment alone. The long-term payoff, however, is substantial: the circular economy is projected to generate €1.5 trillion in economic value by 2040 through new markets, cost savings, and CO2 reductions.

But institutional investors don't base allocation decisions on 2040 projections—they need visibility on near-term returns, exit strategies, and risk mitigation that justifies deploying capital into unfamiliar business models. This temporal mismatch between circular economy payoff timelines and investor return requirements creates fundamental financing challenges.

Where Investment Actually Flows Versus Where It Should

Investment in the circular economy has grown substantially, but capital distribution reveals problematic patterns. Conventional applications like rental and repair attract the vast majority of funding despite existing for decades and offering limited transformational potential. High-impact solutions in design and production—which could eliminate waste at source rather than managing it downstream—receive minimal investment.

This concentration reflects investor psychology favoring familiar business models over innovative approaches. Rental businesses have decades of performance data, established customer bases, and understood economics. Design-focused circular solutions involving new materials, manufacturing processes, or product architectures lack comparable track records, making risk assessment difficult.

Goldman Sachs Asset Management notes that circular economy investments can exhibit attractive infrastructure characteristics given high barriers to entry, contracted business models, and resilience through economic cycles including the global financial crisis and COVID-19 crisis. In the US, decreasing landfill capacity and ever-increasing tip fees have created unique growth opportunities for incumbent players to provide innovative solutions.

Their view is informed by prior and current investments related to cooking oil, wastewater, and organics recycling—notably, all relatively conventional circular applications rather than cutting-edge innovations. A strong moat can be achieved through increased scale, facilities network effects, and long-term customer relationships and contracts, as well as reliability, safety, and track record.

This institutional preference for proven models over innovation creates concerning dynamics. The circular economy solutions with greatest transformational potential receive the least capital, while incremental improvements to existing approaches attract disproportionate funding. Without deliberately shifting this pattern, circular economy financing risks becoming another instance of capital flowing to safe, familiar options rather than necessary innovation.

The Barriers Investors Won't Discuss Publicly

Beyond definitional ambiguity and bankability challenges, circular economy financing faces structural barriers that industry participants acknowledge privately but rarely address in public forums.

Many companies perceive added costs as significant obstacles, along with needing more skills and expertise, insufficient regulatory frameworks, and limited government subsidies. These barriers prevent companies from investing in sustainable technologies and practices necessary to transition successfully to circular models.

Additionally, organizational inertia and the absence of collaborative mechanisms remain significant obstacles. Behavioral resistance among consumers and managers, driven by low awareness and risk aversion, restricts demand for circular products and services.

Fragmented supply chains, isolated decision-making, and insufficient cooperation among actors limit the development of circular strategies. In the construction industry, for instance, the absence of cross-sectoral partnerships and the complexity of procurement processes undermine material recovery and reuse initiatives.

Cultural and behavioral barriers also play significant roles. Entrenched consumer habits, resistance to change within organizations, and general lack of awareness about the environmental and economic benefits of circular practices limit participation in reuse, recycling, and remanufacturing programs.

These soft barriers—culture, behavior, awareness, collaboration—prove harder to solve than technical or financial challenges. You can create financial instruments, publish guidelines, and establish regulatory frameworks, but changing organizational cultures and consumer behaviors requires sustained effort over years.

The Risk Perception Problem

Investors view circular economy projects as riskier than comparable linear economy investments despite evidence suggesting otherwise. This risk perception stems from unfamiliarity rather than actual performance data.

Circular economy investments can deliver risk-adjusted returns. Circular business models generate additional revenue, unlock new markets, and deliver greater value from fewer resources. Circularity is emerging as a key strategy for the financial sector to manage resource risks from supply chain disruptions and material scarcity—risks now more relevant than ever considering trade wars and geopolitical instability.

The circular economy isn't just a sustainable solution—it's an essential tool to manage financial risk. From supply disruptions tied to resource dependence on single countries to the rising likelihood of taxes on virgin materials, the economics of resource use is shifting. Circular businesses are well-positioned to thrive in this new reality.

Yet investors must rethink how they assess risk and value in circular models—updating their frameworks to reflect the circular economy's benefits and building resilience as a result. This requires developing new valuation and risk assessment methodologies that account for retained value of durable, repairable, leased, or reusable products and reduced reliance on volatile global supply chains.

Financial institutions lack these updated frameworks, continuing to apply traditional linear economy assessment approaches to fundamentally different business models. This methodological mismatch systematically undervalues circular economy opportunities and overstates their risks.

What Actually Needs to Happen

Redirecting finance from linear to circular activities is crucial to reversing the trend toward a widening circularity gap. A more circular economy would enable maintaining high living standards while reducing environmental pressure and building long-term economic resilience.

Investors and lenders can update valuation and risk assessment methods to reflect the retained value of durable, repairable, leased, or reusable products and the reduced reliance on volatile global supply chains. Financial regulators can accelerate this shift by standardizing circular definitions and metrics as well as mandating disclosures related to the circular economy. This includes requiring companies to report natural resource dependencies and incorporating resource risk into financial stress tests—such as the impact of material shortages or ecological collapse.

Policymakers can explore a range of fiscal measures that more effectively recognize the social and environmental cost of resource use and the economic risk this involves. Governments can economically incentivize companies, for instance through subsidies for products and materials that enable reuse, recycling, and durability, allowing these products to become competitive before economies of scale reduce prices.

Public institutions can reduce the perceived risk of circular economy by generating market demand for circular products and services through green public procurement and direct investment in critical circular infrastructure.

High-impact circular models remain largely underfunded, representing significant untapped potential and a missed opportunity to build a more resilient financial sector. Realizing this potential will require targeted policies, updated financial frameworks, and a concerted effort to shift capital toward circular solutions.

The Investment Knowledge Required

The economic case for continued investment in the circular economy is clear. Business leaders, capital providers, and investors now understand that in an uncertain geopolitical and economic environment you can't have long-term growth without putting circular economy strategies at its heart.

Yet understanding the case intellectually differs from having the practical knowledge to identify opportunities, assess risks, and structure investments successfully. Most investors lack frameworks for evaluating circular economy business models, understanding the specific barriers they face, or determining which structural factors predict success versus failure.

Quality investment education covering sustainable finance, circular economy business models, infrastructure economics, and impact investing creates the foundation for effectively deploying capital into this emerging asset class. Understanding how circular economy models generate value, what risks they face, which policy frameworks support them, and how to structure financing appropriately separates those who profit from this transition from those who watch from the sidelines.

Whether evaluating specific circular economy investments or simply seeking to understand how this megatrend reshapes industries and creates opportunities, comprehensive knowledge of these dynamics creates advantages that compound throughout your investing career.

The circular economy represents not just an environmental imperative but a multi-trillion dollar economic opportunity. The investors who develop expertise in this space now—understanding both the potential and the very real barriers—position themselves to capture value as capital finally flows at scale toward circular business models that work.

Educational content only. Impact and sustainable investments carry specific risks. Conduct thorough research and consult financial professionals before investment decisions.

More News