The past three decades have seen the rapid development of the Circular Economy (CE) concept. Its early beginnings can be traced to the work of Pierce and Turner, who highlighted the closed relationship between economics and natural capital as a source and sink of resources and waste (Pierce and Turner, 1990). Its evolution has been tightly interwoven with the concepts of industrial ecology, industrial symbiosis, industrial metabolism, environmental sustainability, and sustainable development (Winans et al., 2017; Martín Gómez et al., 2018; Saavedra et al., 2018; Salomone et al., 2020).

The exponential increase in research and development in the field of CE in the last years (Calisto Friant et al., 2020) reflects the urgency to bring society and economics in balance with the environment under threatening climatic parameters. Nowadays, CE is defined as a systems-wide framework whose central goal is to use innovation to “eliminate waste and pollution, circulate products and materials (at their highest value), and regenerate nature” (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2018).

However, despite the global pressure to transition toward a CE, in practice, several barriers and limitations still need to be overcome. These can be categorized into four dimensions: Social/Cultural, Institutional/Regulatory, Economic/Market and Technological (de Jesus and Mendonça, 2018; Paletta et al., 2019; Grafström and Aasma, 2021). In their study of CE barriers within the European Union, Kirchherr et al. (2018) signaled the social/cultural dimension as the strongest barrier to change. This dimension relates to mindsets, mental models, peoples' sensitivity, and awareness (Schultz and Reinhardt, 2022). Prominent social and cultural barriers include (1) Lack of stakeholder's awareness, interest and demand, (2) Reservation against CE or company culture, (3) Limited willingness for collaboration, (4) Lack or inadequacy of knowledge about CE principles and practices (Mangla et al., 2018), and (5) the absence of operational and implementation approaches, and adequate business models and product design strategies activities (Bonsu, 2020; Hina et al., 2022).

To progress these barriers and foster the creation of innovative solutions the participation of the knowledge triangle, which includes research, higher education, and business, is crucial (Smol and Kulczycka, 2019). This means that as CE strengthens across countries and regions such as China, South Korea, Japan, and the European Union (Geng et al., 2013; European Commission, 2015; Ministry of Education, 2020; Lee and Cha, 2021), adequate forms of education and training for the CE become a prominent requirement (Domingues Martinho and Reis Mourão, 2020; Keramitsoglou et al., 2023). The European Union, in particular, has identified “education and training systems as key instruments for accelerating the transition to a circular economy” (European Commission, 2015). However, despite solid evidence highlighting the essential role of education for “bringing change in knowledge, values, behaviors, and lifestyles” around sustainability and CE (Pandey and Vedak, 2010), the adoption of educational strategies on these themes is still limited (Wiek et al., 2014; Keramitsoglou et al., 2023).

While the research field on Education for Circular Economy (ECE) is just emerging (Kirchherr and Piscicelli, 2019), its roots are strongly connected to those of Education for Environmental Sustainability (EES) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). EES strongly focuses on the relationship of humans with nature; its consequences, challenges, and opportunities; and ways to best manage the human-nature space (Frantz and Mayer, 2014; Kibbe et al., 2014). On the other hand, ESD takes a broader approach, incorporating social elements such as poverty, inequality, and economic development (Pandey and Vedak, 2010; UNESCO, 2014). EES and ESD have been regarded worldwide as essential for providing lifelong tools, skills, knowledge, attitudes, and values for conscious decision-making (UNESCO, 2014; Garcia et al., 2017), with universities and higher education programs considered significant contributors to this goal (Karatzoglou, 2013). As an evolving framework from EES and ESD, ECE also considers the role of nature and society but incorporates them into a systems perspective centered on the role of businesses, and their products, value chains, and ecosystems as change makers for sustainable development.

This perspective makes teaching CE vital in preparing future leaders and innovators to foster the transition to a sustainable economy (Saini and Agarwal, 2020). By incorporating ECE into higher education, students can gain the necessary knowledge and expertise to design and implement sustainable systems and business models that promote sustainable development. Moreover, the systems approach of ECE fosters interdisciplinary collaboration across the knowledge triangle. It requires a systems thinking approach, encompassing an integrated understanding of the interdependent economic, social, and environmental systems (Kordova et al., 2018), which can help students develop critical thinking skills, broaden their perspectives, and design innovative solutions to complex sustainability challenges.

It is noteworthy to mention that teaching CE still faces several challenges, including the fact that CE is a broad concept (Rödl et al., 2022). The need for multi-disciplinary and systems thinking approaches can be challenging to convey to students with diverse academic backgrounds, making the learning curve steep and risking leaving students out of the learning process (Wiek et al., 2014). Furthermore, the implementation of ECE aims to change established business practices and models, which may require students to rethink traditional economic models and paradigms. This difficulty means that one must teach the students to “think outside the box,” a primarily internal process that cannot be forced, just fostered. While there is not yet a defined or best teaching style for ECE, Lim et al. (2015) conclude that teaching ESD in higher education requires pedagogical strategies to move from transmissive to discovery learning, teacher-centered to student-centered, and from theoretical to practice-oriented. It can be concluded that this is also the case for ECE. A suitable pedagogical strategy for teaching ECE is Problem-Based Learning (PBL), which is a collaborative, student-centered strategy that has been widely applied to stimulate learning motivation, problem-solving, and research skills, and is student-centered (Wiek et al., 2014; Chang et al., 2018; Randles et al., 2022). The Maastricht University (UM) uses PBL, and variations of it, such as Research-Based Learning, and Project-Centered Learning (PCL), as a key teaching strategy in all its educational programs (Department of Educational Development Research FHML, 2018).

The PBL philosophy of UM has four pillars: constructive, collaborative, contextual, and self-directed learning (CCCS) (Dolmans et al., 2005). PCL and the CCCS values were used to guide the development of this methodology. The methodology centers around a challenge that students need to solve for a company. To do so, students must engage actively and use their own knowledge and skills across academic fields to solve it (constructive learning). Students must work in teams, and the methodology requires them to use collective brainstorming and create value chain scenarios to encourage them to work collaboratively instead of just separating tasks (collaborative learning). By using specific cases but creating different solutions across the value chain, students must look at the challenge from different perspectives (contextual learning). Finally, by letting the team plan and monitor their learning progress and evaluating both the process and product, the methodology encourages self-directed learning.

The objective of this paper is to present an ECE methodology developed for teaching CE in higher education at UM. The method applies specific CE principles in a real-world case study and an eight-step approach called The Circular Pathway (TCP). TCP provides a practical and effective way to support ECE, including Systems Thinking (ST), and Life Cycle Thinking (LCT). This method offers students a well-defined set of skills to apply in their future careers. The approach guides students through the iterative process of product and process redesign while remaining accessible to those without prior expertise in sustainability. This paper provides the principles and details of the developed ECE methodology so that other educational institutions can use it for the development of their own CE education.

This methodology is the outcome of 3 years of iterative development with students from the BSc Business Engineering at UM from 2020 to 2022. The paper is structured as follows: the methods section discusses the process of development, testing, iteration, and improvement of the methodology with a focus on the course design of the method, including the use of PCL. The results section describes each step of the methodology, key processes, outcomes, and guiding questions for tutors. The discussion section elaborates on the outcomes of using the TCP and points toward its strengths and challenges identified by the students. Finally, the conclusion section draws upon the experiences of testing this methodology to elaborate on its relevance, limitations, and future outlook.

The development of this methodology, from the educational standpoint, was designed around the PCL teaching method. The PCL method is small-scale and student-oriented, and, differently from PBL, it is focused on a specific student output: a project (Cattaneo, 2017). Students work in small groups on complex, relevant, and challenging real-world projects that require them to work collaboratively and develop creative, analytical, and problem-solving skills (Barron and Darling-Hammond, 2008). Specifically, this course was given within the “Project period” block of the BSc Business Engineering: a 4-week period where students follow only one course, the Circular Economy Course.

From a content perspective, this methodology has three transformational frameworks at the center: Circular Economy (CE), Life Cycle Thinking (LCT), and Systems Thinking (ST). The CE principles are based on the paper by Garcia-Saravia Ortiz-de-Montellano and van der Meer (2022), the frameworks for CE developed by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015), and the business and design principles of Bocken et al. (2016) and Moreno et al. (2016). The overarching focus of this framework is the importance of value retention strategies to increase circularity. LCT is a framework that emphasizes the importance of understanding a product's entire life cycle, from extraction to end of life, not only its composition or processing stage (Heiskanen, 2002). Finally, ST is understood as the process of placing the product and its value chain into a broader context of social, economic, cultural, and behavioral events, both in the short and long terms (Anderson and Johnson, 1997). The three concepts of CE, LCT, and ST run across the foundation of the methodology.

This section describes the results from a format and content perspective. The “course design” sub-section elaborates on the format and interactions with and among students as well as the key activities expected from them at each step of the course. The “methodology” sub-section describes the TCP methodology in detail throughout the CIRCULAR acronym.

The following section discusses the strengths and limitations of this methodology in the domains of CE, LCT, ST, and soft-skills development. The discussion is based on the anecdotal evidence collected from the two courses given in the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 academic years. Illustrative samples are included throughout the discussion, and the total of collected evidence is supplied in Annex 4. Overall, we argue that this methodology is a valuable tool for the development of LCT and skills for identifying, understanding, mapping, and prioritizing the challenges that different value chains have when transitioning to a circular economy. As one of the student teams pointed out:

As signaled by Clark et al. (2009), this capacity of thinking in systems and across the value chain is an essential skill to redesign products beyond “superficial sustainability' to meet consumers” needs in a more holistic, sustainable, and socially responsible way. Furthermore, the students' feedback indicates that this methodology is a helpful tool to move deeper from the general challenges of circularity to the wicked issues in complex systems and ST. Two examples of this increased awareness are provided below:

The usefulness of ST for the design of circular products has been contested by Sumter et al. (2020), who did not find evidence of the use of ST by circular design practitioners, even when its importance has been highlighted before (Iacovidou et al., 2020; Robinson, 2022). We argue that in the context of ECE, understanding CE through the lens of ST allows students to (1) contextualize the interconnected nature of products and how redesigning one element of the system will require adaptive responses in other parts of the system as well, and (2) gain a more practical understanding its relevance to sustainability, society, business, and innovation. Moreover, the development of ST skills fosters a deeper understanding of the relationships between humanity and the environment, while raising awareness of the influence that elements outside the business unit such as inequality, global disparities and economic development have when designing for sustainability (Pandey and Vedak, 2010; Frantz and Mayer, 2014). This contribution is closely connected to the principles of EES and ESD as well.

Specific to the course design and the use of PCL, research has argued that working in teams on a project with an outsider company or client and adequate educational support can strengthen the students' individual and collaborative learning capacities and build communication, collaboration, and project-management skills (Wiek et al., 2014). Evidence from the student's reports signals that the course allowed them to practice several soft skills, including communication, and teamwork, as exemplified below.

Additional to the students' feedback, the companies involved in these projects have demonstrated their interest in collaborating with students and universities on projects related to sustainability and CE. Based on our experiences and discussions with the companies, their participation allows them to broaden their perspectives through the insights provided by an “outsider team.” The methodology, in particular, offers them an exploratory lens to envision the potential benefits of adopting CE practices within their specific business niche. Even if the immediate applicability may not be evident, this serves as an initial screening of alternative approaches. Finally, several companies have expressed their interest in collaborating with students with the outlook of providing them with internships and getting in contact with young professionals interested in the field. Particularly noteworthy is the interest and commitment that start-ups have shown despite the significant time investment required, relative to their available workforce.

The CE is gaining global significance as an alternative to offset the negative impacts of the linear economy, such as resource depletion, pollution, and climate change. However, the transition from a linear to a circular economy requires significant changes in the way businesses design products, processes, and business models. To succeed in this transition, professionals must be equipped with the knowledge and skills to implement CE principles effectively. However, there is a gap in existing higher education programs on EES, ESD, and CEE for educational resources to help students develop the skills and knowledge required to implement CE principles in real-world settings.

This paper outlines a new methodology to introduce students to the principles of CE, LCT, and ST through hands-on experience and real-world case studies in a project-centered learning environment. Together, these approaches provide a holistic perspective that looks at the system beyond individual parts or stages of a process. The findings from the application of this method at a bachelor's level indicate that students learn to identify and address complexity, linearity, and the importance of systemic change across the entire value chain, which supports their critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making skills. We also acknowledge that this method has important limitations due to working directly with companies in a short period and the demanding nature of fast-paced project periods. Despite these limitations, we have confidence in the relevance of this paper and method as a well-defined and tested approach for exploratory circular product redesign. We assert that the method is useful to the students' learning journey, but also to other educators, businesses, and professionals who require training in CE for educating others, advancing their careers in the field of sustainability and CE, developing new products and business models or support other industries and regions regarding circularity transitions.

This methodology is built in eight steps that follow the CIRCULAR acronym: (1) With the company, students co-define the topic, understand its pressing challenges and develop an initial brief of requirements. (2) Using this brief, students identify the product's current value chain, from extraction to use and end of life. (3) Students then use the theory provided on CE and the scoring matrix to recognize the critical problems of linearity regarding value retention and sustainability. These first three steps comprise the problem definition phase. (4) Afterwards, students create multiple alternatives to the identified problems at different levels and sort them to (5) uncover three value chains that converge multiple solutions. (6) Afterwards, students level up their solutions to improve them and turn them into two visions of change. These three steps cover the idea exploration phase. (7) Finally, students analyze their solutions' risks, limitations, and opportunities and compare them to the original product. (8) In closing this process, they reflect on these visions' impact on the business, environment, and society, which is the consolidation phase of the process.

Based on the empirical evidence gathered through the application and iteration of this methodology, we contend that its strong focus on systems and life-cycle thinking for CE and application to real-world sustainability business challenges contributes to and complements the existing frameworks of Education for Environmental Sustainability (EES), Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), and Education for Circular Economy (ECE). Finally, we argue that fostering graduates equipped with the ability to create circular business models, design sustainable products and services, and promote circular consumption can contribute to the growth of a CE and the creation of new, meaningful job opportunities. As such, incorporating CE principles into higher education programs is crucial to driving the transition to a more sustainable and circular economy.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article's Supplementary material; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

CG-S, YM, and AG contributed to the initial design of the methodology and its application. CG-S wrote the first draft of the manuscript. YM and AG provided feedback and guidance for improvement. All authors revised, read, and approved the submitted version.