1. Introduction
Circular economy (CE) is a new industrial paradigm designed to overcome the linear “take, make, disposal” model, which “relies on large quantities of easily accessible resources and energy, and as such is increasingly unfit to the reality in which it operates” [
1]. The CE is fully integrated into the broader sustainability paradigm since promising to significantly reduce the environmental and social impact of current production and consumption activities [
2] and, simultaneously, provide companies with economic and environmental benefits [
3].
A CE is mainly based on three key principles: (1) preserving and enhancing natural capital by controlling stocks of non-renewable resources and balancing renewable resource flows, (2) keeping products and materials in use at most in both biological and technical cycles, and (3) designing out wastes and negative environmental externalities such as pollution [
1]. These principles are not completely new; they are inspired by previous concepts such as industrial ecology [
4], the “cradle-to-cradle” concept of eco-effectiveness [
5], and cleaner production [
6]. CE principles can be implemented via slowing (i.e., maintenance, repair, remanufacturing) and closing (i.e., recycling) resource cycles [
7].
The transition towards the CE is gaining momentum in the policy plans of many countries. For instance, the European Commission has established a strategic agenda to transform the EU economy into a circular one. It launched the first CE Action Plan in 2015 [
8] and the new CE Action Plan in 2020 [
9], as one of the main building blocks of the European Green Deal. Similarly, China has just released the Development Plan for the Circular Economy, integrated into the 14th Five-Year Plan Period (2021–2025).
The transition towards a CE requires the involvement and contribution of a variety of different stakeholders, including both private and public actors. Firms are required to reduce the environmental impacts of their activities by profoundly changing their managerial and organizational practices in using resources (e.g., energy, raw materials, water). CE principles claim for firms to design, manufacture, distribute, and retrieve products differently from the past [
10]. Companies are expected to maintain mostly the properties of products and their components, allowing for further efficient re-use or re-manufacturing of resources, as well as for better maintenance [
11]. Additionally, a CE requires firms to modify their business models and to adopt proper strategies to implement its principles. In this regard, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation proposes the “Resolve framework”, which highlights six CE strategies: REgenerate, Share, Optimize, Loop, Virtualize, and Exchange [
12]. A popular way to classify CE strategies is using the “R” frameworks. Kirchherr et al. [
2] propose a “4R” framework, which includes reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover. Potting et al. [
13] develop a more nuanced framework consisting of ten Rs. They are classified from low to high circularity into recover, recycle, repurpose, remanufacturing, refurbish, repair, reuse, reduce, rethink, and refuse. Kalmykova et al. [
14] classify CE strategies in nine groups corresponding to the dimensions of the CE value chain: (1) material sourcing, (2) design, (3) manufacturing, (4) distribution and sales, (5) consumption and use, (6) collection and disposal, (7) recycling and recovery, (8) remanufacturing, and (9) circular input. Recently, Burger et al. [
15] distinguish between core CE activities and enabling CE activities. Core CE activities refer to “Prioritization of regenerative resources”, “Preservation and extension of what is already made”, the “Use of waste as a resource”, and “Rethinking of business models”. Enabling CE strategies concern “Collaborate to create joint value”, “Design for the future”, and “Incorporate digital technology”.
All organizational functions—including engineering, procurement, marketing and sales, supply chain, design, production, and logistics—are being impacted by the CE transformation and, as a consequence, new and updated skills and competences aligned with the CE principles are required for all these areas. In particular, managers of all business departments should align their skills and competences to the increasing complexity of this new context [
16]. Therefore, the transition to a CE is accompanied by profound changes in the labor market. A CE is expected to create new jobs in the energy, production, and services industries [
17]. Recently, Burger et al. [
15] highlighted that CE jobs—i.e., jobs that contribute directly to the CE—are emerging not only in core CE sectors but also in non-green sectors that support core CE sectors providing them with goods and services. They also noticed that core CE activities require more manual and technological skills than enabling CE activities, which alternatively require more complex cognitive skills.
In this scenario, higher education institutions play a critical role through teaching activities that inform new young generations and reskill professionals according to the new requirements of a CE [
18]. In fact, it is widely recognized that education is critical for fostering the change not just in knowledge but also in values and behaviors required to achieve sustainable development [
19]. For this reason, education for CE has emerged as a nascent field of study in CE literature.
Despite the great number of studies on education for sustainable development [
18], only few studies have specifically investigated how the higher education system is addressing CE teaching and how current academic offerings have been modified by integrating CE principles [
20,
21,
22].
In particular, studies are fragmented since they have focused on specific academic disciplines [
23], without providing a clear and integrated analysis of the degree programs, courses, and modules concerning the CE in general. This limits the establishment of the CE as a discipline by itself. To the best of our knowledge, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation provided the first and only outlook of CE learning offerings in higher education, collecting information on what is being taught where and how, referring to 2018 [
24]. The report identifies 138 higher education institutions with CE offerings, of which 51 learning offerings have the words “CE” in the title. These addressed eight main themes: environmental aspects, social aspects, policy levers, digital technologies, design, servitization, circular business models, and system thinking.
Furthermore, the literature on CE education has analyzed the teaching and learning approaches adopted in CE higher education, distinguishing between traditional frontal lessons and innovative active learning approaches ([
18,
20]), but has devoted very limited attention to identify and characterize the skills and competences provided by the CE programs, courses, and modules. However, this knowledge is critical because it can help clarify the features of the new professional jobs associated with the CE transition [
24]. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to address these gaps by answering to the following research questions:
- RQ1
Which are the most recent programs, courses, and modules concerning the CE higher education offering in different academic disciplines?
- RQ2
Which are the main skills and competences provided by the CE higher education programs, courses, and modules?
We answer these research questions by analyzing the current higher education offering on the CE in Italy. We selected Italy for different reasons. Italy is amongst the European countries with the best value as to the global circularity index. Italy has also promoted many legislative actions to support the adoption of CE principles, such as the Law 221/2015, aimed at fostering green economy and sustainable development, and the Law 216/2020 “Waste Decree”, which incorporates the four European directives (851/2018 and 852/2018) containing the CE Package [
25]. Furthermore, there are financial incentives for firms to support the development of innovation projects in the CE field (e.g., Transizione 4.0 and R&S Economia circolare decrees).
The paper is organized as follows. We first briefly review the studies on education for CE (
Section 2). In
Section 3, we present the methodology we followed to answer our research questions. Successively, in
Section 4 we describe the main results. The paper ends with discussions (
Section 5), limitations, and further research avenues (
Section 6).
3. Methods
We collected data concerning the higher education offerings of the 49 Italian higher education institutions reported in the Europe Teaching Ranking 2019, developed by the Times Higher Education (
www.timeshighereducation.com (accessed on 1 December 2020)). Data are referred to from the academic year 2020–2021 and the research was updated on 15 February 2021.
We searched for: (1) bachelors, (2) masters, (3) postgraduate courses, (4) high specialized courses, (5) seasonal schools, and (6) single disciplines. We decided to focus exclusively on those offerings having the words “Circular Economy”, “Circularity” or “Circular” in the title of the course/disciplines. We excluded the offerings including related topics such as sustainability or specific CE strategies (e.g., industrial symbiosis, material efficiency, renewable energy), since our aim is to investigate the establishment of the CE as a new field of study by itself.
To identify the skills and competences provided by the CE education, we analyzed the learning outcomes of the programs, courses, and modules collected. Learning outcomes are specific statements of what learners are expected to understand, know, and/or be able to demonstrate after the learning process. They are required in the design of any course and discipline according to the European Qualifications Framework. Learning outcomes concern knowledge (both theoretical and factual), skills (i.e., the ability to use knowledge to complete tasks), and competences (i.e., the ability to apply knowledge and skills autonomously and with responsibility).
We classified the learning outcomes on the basis of cognitive and content dimensions. The cognitive dimension refers to the Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), which classifies thinking behaviors during the learning process and permits to identify six classes corresponding to increasing cognitive skills (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation). We referred to the new version developed in 2001, where the skills are translating into verbs (remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, creating) (
Figure 1). Knowledge refers to
remembering facts, terms, basic concepts, and answers. Comprehension is related to demonstrating a basic
understanding of facts and knowledge. Application refers to
applying the acquired knowledge in different contexts. Analysis corresponds to
examining in detail and breaking information into parts by identifying causes, motives, and making inferences. Evaluation is related to developing opinions, judgments on something, and making decisions (
evaluating) Finally,
creating refers to compiling information together in new ways so as to create something new or propose alternatives.
As to the content, we referred to the framework proposed by Kirchherr et al. [
2], which distinguishes core principles, aims, and enablers of the CE. As to the core principles, we include the ten “R” strategies by referring to the framework proposed by Potting et al. [
13], the waste hierarchy, and the systems perspective. As to the aims, we distinguished sustainable development in general, as well as the economic, environmental, and social goals separately, with the attendant measurement indicators. We also included the innovation in this dimension as a further goal of CE applications. Concerning the enablers, we referred to circular business models, customer behavior, and the basics of risk management/change management.
4. Results
Table 1 shows the number of courses and the number of disciplines classified on the basis of the categories defined. Accordingly, there is no bachelor’s degree specifically on CE; alternatively, the offering is focused on master’s degrees and postgraduate courses. A total of 56 different CE disciplines are offered, out of which 8 are in bachelor’s degrees and 48 in master’s degrees.
Table 2 displays the universities that offer at least one CE program/course or one CE module. It can be noted that 30 out of 49 universities offer at least one CE course or one CE module; in particular, 10 institutions offer at least one CE program/course and 26 institutions offer at least one CE module.
Table 3 and
Table 4 display the CE programs/courses and the CE modules offered by Italian higher education institutions, respectively.
Figure 2 shows that CE modules are offered in 13 out of 20 Italian regions: 33 CE modules are offered in Northern Italy, 16 in Central Italy, and 7 in Southern Italy.
Figure 3 shows the distribution of the 56 CE modules according to the scientific areas defined by the Italian National Research Council: 30% belongs to industrial engineering (ING-IND), 26% to economics (SECS-P), 14% to chemical sciences (CHIM), 14% to civil engineering and architecture (ICAR), 8% to agricultural and veterinary sciences (AGR), 5% to statistics (SECS-S), 1% to biological sciences (BIO), 1% to earth sciences (GEO), and 1% to psychology (M-PSI). Considering the specific academic disciplines, the most represented are health and environmental engineering (ICAR-06) with six CE disciplines, management engineering (ING-IND/35) and political economics (SECS-P/02) with four disciplines each, industrial design (ICAR/13), metallurgy (ING-IND/21), chemical plants (ING-IND/25), and applied economics (SECS-P/06) with three disciplines each.
For what concerns the teaching and learning approaches, the description of the single disciplines does not emphasize the adoption of any innovative learning approaches, except for the course at the Polytechnic University of Turin organized as a challenge to promote the entrepreneurial culture/behavior in the CE field. Students are arranged in multidisciplinary teams and are engaged in resolving a real problem coming from partner firms.
In the following, we list the learning outcomes related to CE, identified by collecting the information provided in each program, course, and module, and classified them into the six cognitive classes according to the Bloom’s classification.
4.1. Remembering
To know the grand environmental challenges in society.
To know the pillars of CE: origin, principles, barriers, enablers
To know the basics of bioeconomy.
To know the bioplastics and bio-based products.
To know the normative and legislative frameworks.
To know the alternative CE business models.
To know CE value chain activities.
To know basics of sustainability business and corporate sustainability.
To know the eco-friendly materials and their properties.
To know how closing resource cycles.
To know waste-to-energy technologies and industrial plants.
To know recycling and waste valorization.
To know the role of bioenergy.
To know scientific and technical origins of biomasses.
To know waste management principles, policies, and legislation.
To know the plants and equipment for waste storage, collection, transfer, treatment, and disposal.
To know eco-design principles.
To know circular supply chain archetypes.
To know the basics of risk management in a CE.
To know the possible applications of the biotechnologies.
To know the criteria of Green Public Procurement.
To know the principles of Sustainable Entrepreneurship.
To know how to manage environmental communication as a green marketing tool.
To know the theoretical approaches of ecological economics.
To know sustainable resource management.
4.2. Understanding
To understand the consumer behavior in the CE.
To understand and describe the main principles of socio-technical transitions.
To understand the risks involved with the CE transition.
To understand the design challenges of bio-based products.
To understand the processing technologies for closing biological and technical cycles.
To understand the role of materials, resources, and energy in the CE.
To understand the environmental assessment tools.
To understand the life cycle assessment framework and analysis.
To understand the production of biofuels, bioenergy, and biochemical.
To understand the environmental impact of industrial production in the agriculture sector.
To understand the potential, the advantages, and the challenges of biorefinery technologies in different contexts.
To understand the problems related to the waste-resource transformation in the building sector.
To understand the ecosystemic value of the environmental resources.
To understand how to manage environmental resources by maximizing the value of ecosystem services.
4.3. Applying
To apply the concepts of a CE in decision making and business development.
To apply sustainable issues in new product development.
To apply digital technologies and sharing platforms for innovating products and processes.
To manage product and service innovation in the CE.
To apply environmental certifications.
To apply environmental assessment tools.
To apply life cycle assessment.
To manage critical information for improving material efficiency.
To apply CE indicators and tools.
To apply industrial symbiosis mechanisms.
To apply industry 4.0 technologies to support the adoption of circular business models.
4.4. Analyzing
To identify CE innovation projects.
To recognize opportunities and risks in a CE.
To analyze the value chain of a product, process, and service.
To compute energy balance, material flow analysis, and recycling indicators.
To analyze the technological cycles in terms of “R” strategies.
4.5. Evaluating
To select the most appropriate business models.
To assess risks concerning greenhouse gas emissions.
To assess the environmental impact and the economic sustainability of waste recycling and valorization plants.
To assess the productivity and efficiency of biological and technical resources.
To evaluate the feasibility of biological products.
To evaluate the reliability of products.
To measure and quantify the impacts of a CE model from a normative, economic, and technological point of view.
To select the materials for engineering applications to reduce the environmental impact.
To evaluate the technical, economic, and environmental efficiency of circular production and consumption models.
4.6. Creating
To create a CE action plan in specific contexts.
To design the indicators to monitor the implementation of the CE action plan.
To design biological cascade cycles to regenerate biological materials.
To design technical cascade cycles to regenerate products.
To design new products and processes with low energy impact.
To design de-assembling phase of a product.
To design circular and sustainable supply chains.
To design sustainable production and logistics processes.
To develop new CE business models.
To design new CE business models for the biorefinery sector.
To design the phases of product refurbishing.
The classification of the learning outcomes based on both the content and cognitive dimensions is shown in
Appendix A. The analysis reveals that all the ‘R’ strategies are covered, with a higher frequency for recover, recycle, reduce, and rethink. As to this dimension, the learning outcomes identified mostly belong to the
remembering cognitive class.
A high number of learning outcomes also refer to the systems perspective. In such a case, we can observe that the main knowledge concerns the basics, the pillars, the principles, the barriers, and the enablers of the CE, as well as the challenges addressed. A relevant knowledge also regards the CE value chain activities and circular supply chain archetypes. As to this dimension, the learning outcomes identified refer to higher-level cognitive classes, i.e., the understanding class (the main principles of socio-technological transitions), the applying class (the application of CE in decision making and business development), the evaluating class (the ability to measure the impact of CE from multiple points of view), and the creating class (the development of a CE action plan).
Multiple learning outcomes cover the aims content dimension. In particular, we find learning outcomes concerning the knowledge about sustainability in terms of business and corporate sustainability, principles of sustainable entrepreneurship, and sustainable resource management. We also find that specific learning outcomes refer to the knowledge and the development of economic and environmental performance, indicators, and tools. Interestingly, we also note that three learning outcomes refer to the application and development of innovations using the CE principles and the adoption of digital technologies.
Finally, we find learning outcomes referring to the enablers of the CE, i.e., the business models, the role of the consumer, and the management of risks. As to the business models, it is fundamental to know the available options and the way they create value, as well as to develop the ability to design circular business models in a given context also by adopting the industry 4.0 technologies. As to the consumer dimension, specific learning outcomes concern the knowledge of the role of green marketing to communicate the CE projects and the consumer behavior for circular products. The analysis of the risks associated with the CE transition is also a relevant learning outcome.
5. Discussion
These papers addressed two main research questions. First, they provided an updated and integrated picture of the current higher education offerings by identifying the degree programs, courses, and modules concerning the CE, with reference to different academic disciplines, while previous studies have focused their attention on specific vertical areas. We found that the CE offering spans different levels, ranging from undergraduate to postgraduate courses. However, it is focused on master’s degrees and postgraduate courses, meaning that the discipline is aimed at preparing higher-level professionals. We confirm that education for CE refers to different academic disciplines [
18], but mainly concerns engineering, business, management, and chemistry. The absence of subjects in the areas of law, arts, and humanities is noteworthy; however, it represents an important dimension to design and carry out CE projects.
As to the second research question, we identified skills and competences provided by CE higher education, a gap in the current literature, by conducting a detailed analysis of the learning outcomes of the CE programs, courses, and modules. We classified them on the basis of both cognitive and content dimensions. In doing so, our analysis goes beyond the definition of a mere list of courses and modules concerning CE education, as the one provided by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [
24]. We found that the so-called “R” strategies represent the main knowledge, even though some of them (repair, reuse, and refuse) did not receive adequate attention. This is quite surprising since repair and reuse represent two famous strategies of the CE. This could be explained by the procedure we adopted to search the courses/subjects that require the word “circular” in the title.
The most relevant competences regard recovery and recycling. This is not unexpected since the production of energy from waste and the waste valorization, as well as the recycling of plastics and wastes in general, belongs to the most traditional features in CE [
18]. It is noteworthy that we found that reduce and rethink have a prominent presence, meaning that these strategies represent the basics of CE knowledge.
We confirmed that the systems perspective is a content dimension in CE education and knowledge and a high number of skills, and competences are provided on this topic.
Our analysis also confirmed that education for CE is highly related to sustainability education [
27]. We found different skills and competences related to sustainable development in general and, more specifically, to sustainable goals [
18]. However, while the economic and environmental aspects are covered, we found that knowledge concerning the social goals of the CE is missing. The ability to assess and measure the economic and environmental benefits by developing proper CE indicators are further relevant competences that emerged from our analysis.
Finally, relevant knowledge, skills, and competences regard the existence of alternative circular business models and the ability to design models appropriate for a specific context by also exploiting digital technologies. The ability to develop green marketing communication plans, understanding the role of consumer behavior, and knowing and analyzing the risks associated with CE projects were also identified as important skills.
Implications
Our findings provide interesting implications. First, the existence of three master’s degrees and five postgraduate courses mentioning the words “Circular Economy” in the title suggest that CE is being established as an independent academic discipline.
Some suggestions to improve education for CE can be also formulated. Since offering in the areas of law, arts, and humanities is totally absent, we believe that specific attention should be devoted to integrating the CE principles also in these fields of study. Furthermore, given that the offering appears to be focused on conventional “R” strategies, we suggest that higher education should devote more attention to new disciplines focused on higher-level “R” strategies such as refuse, repair, and reuse. Furthermore, more consideration should be devoted to specific circular business models such as product as a service and sharing platform. The low attention dedicated to them is a notable limitation of current offerings. Furthermore, education should focus more on the creation of innovation and entrepreneurship skills.
We also suggest increasing the adoption of innovative and active learning approaches based on real projects and problems. This would require designing modules and courses in collaboration with companies and industry associations. In this way, a better and faster alignment between what is actually required by firms and what the higher education system is offering will be also obtained.
Finally, our study contributes to the literature referring to the emerging CE jobs. Based on the analysis of learning outcomes, we confirm that CE jobs are mainly related to waste management, environmental assessment, and product recover, recycle, reducing, and rethinking [
15]. However, this is only a part of the CE jobs, corresponding to the most conventional professionals related to the CE. More interestingly, our analysis highlights that a new professional figure is also emerging that can be defined as the “CE manager”. Such a role is a high-level manager, with skills and competences distinctive from the classical sustainability manager, in charge of business transformation according to the CE paradigm. They have a background in industrial engineering and/or economics and business, with specific technical and managerial knowledge concerning the design and implementation of the CE strategies, the development of CE action plans, and its control, by monitoring of the actions and by measuring the economic and environmental performance achieved. The CE manager is able to recognize opportunities and risks coming from a CE. They are able to analyze the organizational context and to design appropriate circular business models by leveraging the multidisciplinary knowledge about production technologies, bio-based materials, industrial plants, and industry 4.0 technologies. They interact with all the business departments (procurement, R&D, engineering, design, production, marketing, etc.) to investigate and carry out CE projects concerning the improvement of resource use efficiency, the reduction and valorization of wastes, the extension of product life cycle, the development of sustainable product, and service innovations. The CE manager is thus able to manage complexities and interdependencies by adopting a systemic approach. The CE manager is also able to pursue innovation by adopting the CE principles.
6. Conclusions
In the last years, the higher education system has been involved in the process of modifying its offerings so as to integrate CE concepts in academic curricula and provide new and updated skills and competences required to accomplish the CE transition. A novel field of studies has emerged in the CE literature, which has mainly analyzed the integration of CE principles in specific academic disciplines and the learning and teaching approaches to adopt in the education [
52].
This paper contributed to this literature by providing a detailed and integrated analysis of the current higher education for CE, by identifying the programs, courses, and modules offered in different academic disciplines in Italy and by clarifying the knowledge, the skills, and the competences associated with CE, which is missing in the current literature. The findings were useful to provide suggestions to improve CE education, which is of utmost importance to support the CE transition, and to clarify the main features of new CE jobs.
Although our paper has some merits, it suffers some limitations. First, the analysis is focused only on Italy. To have a clear picture of the CE education landscape, the analysis should be extended to include other countries where CE is currently mostly diffused, such as the UK, the Netherlands, China, and the United States of America. Nevertheless, it could be useful to compare the education landscape of these countries to understand how different cultures perceive the CE and to identify differences and similarities in knowledge provided and learning and teaching approaches used.
Second, we only searched for courses/disciplines having the word “circular” in the title. On the one hand, this analysis permitted to have a clear and quick snapshot of the topic and its emergence as an independent and autonomous discipline; however, on the other hand, it could have underestimated the diffusion of CE in academic curricula and, perhaps, it could have favored some scientific areas compared to others. We also neglected to collect data on courses adopting digital technologies such as MOOCs and vocational and long-life learning programs, which could be the objective of future analyses since they are a competitive priority for the European education systems.
Based on the analysis of learning outcomes, we identified knowledge, skills, and competences for CE. However, this analysis represents the offering point of view, and the findings could not correspond to what is mostly required by firms to implement a CE transition (i.e., from the demand point of view).
Finally, we analyzed the role of higher education focusing on teaching activities. Recently, it has been recognized that higher education represents an area of interest for CE as a strategic agent that actively participates in technological and socio-cultural innovation [
53]. In this context, the role of higher education is aimed at catalyzing innovation and the upskilling of students as future professionals, citizens, and consumers through exposure to real-life innovation processes not only embedded in the curriculum [
54].
Further steps of research will be devoted to looking for specific CE strategies in academic curricula, such as industrial symbiosis, eco-design, resource sharing, and digital technologies. To clearly define knowledge, skills, and competences for CE, further research should be devoted to investigating the education needs from the company perspective. This will contribute to a better professional qualification of CE jobs.