Measuring Employment In The Circular Economy: Already Millions Of Jobs

The baseline shows that circular employment is highly concentrated in a narrow set of activities. Nearly all jobs, around 121 million, are located in what is considered fully circular sectors such as repair and maintenance, waste management, second-hand trade, and urban transit. Repair and maintenance alone accounts for 46% of all circular jobs, employing at least 65.2 million people globally.

It reveals both strength and limitation, as noted by Esther Goodwin Brown, Circular Jobs Initiative Lead at Circle Economy. On one hand, repair and reuse demonstrate the labour-intensive nature of circularity. On the other, key industrial sectors remain only marginally circular. Manufacturing, construction, and mining together employ just 20.5 million workers in partially circular activities—despite their enormous material and emissions footprints.

This gap points to untapped employment potential. Based on the report, manufacturing is only 7.5% circular, and construction 3.1%. Without targeted industrial policy, circularity risks remain confined to low-productivity segments rather than transforming core economic systems.

Perhaps the most consequential finding is that informality defines today’s circular economy. Over half of all circular jobs (52%), affecting more than 74 million people, are informal—rising to over 84% in low- and lower-middle-income countries, with Asia and the Pacific alone hosting nearly 50 million informal workers. Waste pickers, repair workers, and second-hand traders typically work without contracts, social protection, safety, or representation, making circularity a survival strategy rather than a green choice.

As Diana Junquera of IndustriAll Global Union warned, job numbers alone mean little without formalisation and rights. From an enterprise perspective, Robert Marinkovich of the International Organization of Employers underscored the need for incentives such as tax rebates and green procurement to offset cost premiums, while entrepreneur Kidus Asfaw of Kubik (Ethiopia) showed that enabling policies and direct sourcing can significantly raise incomes and deliver wider social benefits.

Circular activities are labour-intensive but frequently low on productivity, particularly in informal settings. Without productivity gains and higher value addition, incomes remain too low to support formalization, skills upgrading, or social protection.

Price signals play a decisive role. Senior Professor Joaquim Bento Filho of Escola Superior de Agricultura (Brazil) pointed out high-value materials like aluminium are widely recycled, while low-value plastics are often ignored. He also highlighted exclusion of agriculture—lacking ISIC definitions—yet Brazil’s circular poultry and biofuels show redefinition needs. This underscores the need for policy-driven incentives (like green public procurement, standards, and fiscal measures) to make higher-value circular jobs economically viable.

A consistent message from the report and launch discussions was the need for a “twin transition”—advancing circularity alongside formality and decent work. Edmonds and Brown urged rights-based policies and how achieving this requires policy coherence beyond environment ministries, integrating circular economy employment data into macroeconomic planning and targeting circular manufacturing and construction through industrial policy.

Support for cooperatives, MSMEs, and social enterprises must be paired with skills development, social protection, and occupational safety for informal workers. Social dialogue is essential. As emphasised, workers must be at the table, using new evidence to negotiate transitions that are fair, productive, and inclusive.