New Zealand needs to go circular. And with an election fast-approaching on 7 November, there is not better moment to make that case.
This is an election year. Policies are being written, platforms are being debated, and political parties are deciding what kind of country they want to campaign on building. I want to make the case that a National Circular Economy Strategy should be on every serious party’s agenda — not as an environmental add-on, but as core economic policy. Because physics and the physical limits of our planet leave us no choice – and because the rest of the world is leaving us behind.
Why This Isn’t Optional
An economy built on a linear design — extract raw materials, make products, use them, discard them — requires a planet that can continuously supply raw materials and absorb pollution. We do not live on that planet — the laws of physics (and chemistry and biology) do not allow it. We live on a finite planet. And an economic system that treats finite resources as infinite inputs and uses the natural world as an open sewer is not just environmentally reckless it is structurally broken. It will fail. It is failing. The 3.3 million tonnes of household and commercial waste New Zealand sends to landfill every year is not a statistic about rubbish. It is a measure of the resources we extract and the value we deliberately lose from our economy.
That is not a smart economic model. This not a sustainable economic model. It is an act of collective self-sabotage.
The Cost of Standing Still
Of course, it is not just environmental measures that demonstrate this self-sabotage. The war in Iran and the effective restriction of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz — a waterway through which roughly 20 percent of both globally traded oil and liquified natural gas (LNG) flows — has sent fuel and petrochemical prices soaring and rattled supply chains in ways that are landing directly on New Zealand businesses and households. The International Energy Agency has described it as the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market. MFAT data shows that higher fuel and fertiliser prices are already flowing through to domestic inflation, consumer confidence has fallen, and an increasing share of firms expect to pass rising costs on to their customers. The risks are so significant that the New Zealand Government established a dedicated Ministerial Economic Security and Supply Chains Group in March 2026 to manage the fallout. Have we learnt nothing from what COVID-19 exposed of the realities of being at the bottom of the world?
A circular economy would not eliminate our exposure to geopolitical shocks, future pandemics, or the increasingly extreme weather events we know are coming. But it would meaningfully reduce it. An economy that keeps materials circulating domestically and regionally, that is less dependent on continuous imports of virgin raw materials and fossil fuels, and that has built local circular capability is an economy that is harder to knock over when a conflict closes a shipping lane on the other side of the world, a viruses goes rouge, or a cyclone inundates a global trading hub. Economic resilience is not a nice-to-have. It is an absolute fundamental.
Not a Silver Bullet, But the Foundation
Before I go further, I want to be clear that a circular economy is not a complete answer to everything that is broken about the current economic system. Most significantly for me, it does not directly address inequality, poverty, mental health, or the many other ways our current model fails people. For that, we need to draw on other well-designed frameworks — Doughnut Economics, Well-being Economy thinking, and others — that put the health of people alongside the health of the planet at the centre of economic design. A thriving future requires that we combine all of these.
But here is the non-negotiable, foundational point that sits underneath the need for a circular economy: physics. However we redesign our economy, it has to operate within planetary limits and its circular systems (e.g. water cycle, carbon cycle, life cycle). The alternative is a system that collapses under its ignorance of these laws of nature. We do not get to debate the circular economy as optional. We get to debate how we design it, how fast we move, and how we make sure the transition is fair and inclusive.
That is the conversation I want New Zealand’s political parties to be having out loud between now and November.
Business Can’t Do This Alone
We at Go Well have been working with businesses for almost a decade now and we can tell you with real conviction, when it comes to transitioning to the necessary circular economy there is only so much a business, or even an industry, can do on their own. It will not happen at the speed or scale it needs to without government leadership.
While businesses can design their own products, packaging, or business models or collaborate with others on stewardship schemes or repair programmes, they need both national and local governments to support with the necessary infrastructure, services, regulations, incentives, and communications to match — not to mention support with the financial barriers.
For example, we are sending millions of tonnes of plastics offshore to be recycled or landfilled, we still don’t have a container return scheme, millions of tonnes of organic resources are still sent to landfills, and our banks are extremely reluctant to lend to businesses for the purpose of implementing circular economy solutions. They simply don’t like the risk.
On a side note — isn’t that a great example of the absurdity of where we find ourselves. Our current economic system is collapsing under the realities of physics and the planetary boundaries, and yet our banks are not incentivised to finance the transition to a circular economic system that is our only hope of operating in harmony with these natural laws.
We’re Not Starting From Zero
The good news is that we would not be starting from scratch. Firstly, there has been important foundational work done by some in government positions who have tried to show leadership, (the former MfE and MBIE being the standout performers) that we can build on. There are numerous global examples we can learn from (see below) and global think tanks such as The Ellen MacArthur Foundation that have spent more than 15 years building the intellectual foundations for a global transition to circular economics, or the The Circular Economy Club, which operates in over 70 cities across the world. The research base, the frameworks, the policy toolkits, and the international case studies all exist. They are freely available. New Zealand’s task is not to invent something new. It is to take that thinking, apply it honestly to our specific context — our geography, our trade exposure, our Treaty obligations, our existing industrial base — and build something collaboratively and coherently to actually move the dial.
Everyone Else Already Has a Plan
Here is what makes the absence of a national strategy particularly hard to defend. New Zealand’s four largest trading partners — China, Australia, the United States, and Japan — all have circular economy objectives embedded in their trade and economic policies. The UK and EU do too. There are circular economy provisions in New Zealand’s recent Free Trade Agreements with the EU and UK, and in our updated Closer Economic Relations Sustainable and Inclusive Trade Declaration with Australia.
To dig into just one of those trading partners a little more, Australia has a Circular Economy Ministerial Advisory Group and have published its National Circular Economy Framework in December 2024 — setting an ambitious goal of doubling Australia’s circularity by 2035, with targets to reduce material footprint per capita by 10%, improve material productivity by 30%, and achieve an 80% resource recovery rate. Australia is our closest neighbour, our most direct economic comparator, and our second-largest trading partner. They have a plan. We do not.
What a National Strategy Would Actually Do
So, what would a National Circular Economy Strategy for New Zealand actually look like? And what kind of New Zealand would it help build?
It would be built around the three principles of the circular economy and showcase the pathway for the country to achieve circularity. A full picture would be drawn of our existing infrastructure that allows for recycling, composting, reusing, refilling, repairing, reselling, and remanufacturing. The gaps would be identified, and the necessary infrastructure and capability would be planned and built. Where the economics or practicalities just don’t stack up for Aotearoa — e.g. due to a lack of volume or the cost of equipment doesn’t justify the impact — we would utilise overseas solutions.
Picture the New Zealand This Builds
The country would be powered by 100% renewable energy, we would have product stewardship schemes for the majority of products sold, there would be regional and national-wide container deposit schemes, refill stations, and repair shops on every high street with repair technicians available for call outs. Hard to recycle plastics would be banned and waste management services decentralised to improve resource recovery and decrease contamination rates, and platforms for sharing and renting products would be abundant and cheap. Businesses and communities would all be actively restoring our land, water, and ecosystems helping to prepare for more frequent and extreme weather events.
The national strategy would connect across every sector and would align central and local government with businesses and communities around a shared direction. It would create long-term certainty and the regulatory and investment conditions that make circular business models and innovations commercially viable, not just ethically appealing.
Importantly it would also give clear signals to businesses and industries who will no longer be required in a circular economy. It’s an uncomfortable truth we have to face up to. There are products and services available in today’s linear economy that simply won’t be compatible with a circular economy. To do anything other than address this reality is to mislead and compromise the opportunities for those businesses and industries, and all the human beings they employ. A national circular economy strategy would provide visibility of the pathways available for these business and industries to adapt and evolve.
Built From the Ground Up, Not Handed Down
While the need for a national circular economy is beyond debate, the discussion must turn to how it is designed. As we have come to learn at Go Well, the design process matters as much as the strategy itself. A circular economy strategy cannot be handed down from Wellington. It has to be built from the ground up, from communities that understand their own systems, resources, and opportunities better than any policy team ever will. Before we can design a coherent national strategy, we need to understand what we already have — and right now, that picture does not exist in one place.
There are circular economy projects operating all over New Zealand. Community repair initiatives. Product stewardship schemes. Composting and food recovery networks. Regenerative farms. Businesses that have redesigned their supply chains. Iwi-led land and water restoration projects that embody circular and regenerative thinking in ways that predate the Ellen MacArthur Foundation by centuries. Almost none of it is mapped in a way that lets us understand the collective picture. A properly resourced, nationwide engagement process — going into every community and every sector, asking what you are already doing and what you need to do more — would produce that picture. And in doing so, it would build the nation-wide ownership that would be required to implement the strategy.
This “circular economy map” for Aotearoa would then provide the government with a really clear understanding of where it can best invest its money (our money) in a systematic way to maximise the circular impact. It would also encourage private investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship, and help inform the policy that would build out the required regulatory framework.
A Saturday Morning in a Circular Aotearoa
Just take a moment now to picture this future New Zealand: it is Saturday morning and you drop and break your toaster. You curse, then calm down and get dressed in your hired clothes, grab some empty containers and drop your broken toaster at your local repair café. While you wait you go to the next-door supermarket and refill your containers with coffee and jam, plus you buy some eggs and fresh fruit that come from your local community farm. You go back and pick up your toaster, then head home and feast.
You have emitted no greenhouse gases (you travelled on electric public transport, drove an EV, or cycled), you supported your local repair shop, your local supermarket and your local farm. You created no waste or pollution, and your toaster is as good as new!
Think about what that New Zealand feels like to live in. High-quality products designed to last, to be repaired, to be remade rather than dumped. A relationship with stuff that is fundamentally different — you own less but value what you own more. You admire the craftmanship of both the new and the repaired. Communities with skills again: repair, making, growing, building. Economic activity that creates jobs builds, connects people, and retains value and resources in Aotearoa. The last landfill closing – not more protests about new ones. Our unique native bush and birds flourishing, not just in the national parks but in the margins, the riparian corridors, the coastal edges, our shared public spaces.
This is all a matter of economic design. Why would we settle for anything less?
The Question for Every Party on the Ballot
Back to our impending election. The question for every political party asking for our votes in November is straightforward. How does your economic vision account for the physical limits of our planet and of New Zealand’s environment? What is your plan for transitioning New Zealand’s industries, communities, and infrastructure toward a circular model? How will you use this election cycle to build the strategy our trading partners already have?
These are not radical questions. They are the questions that economic stewardship demands. The frameworks exist. The international evidence is overwhelming. The trade agreements we have already signed are pointing in this direction. Our communities are already doing the work, in dozens of places across the country, but could do so much more with the support a national strategy would provide.
We have an election in November. We have a choice about the kind of economy we build on the other side of it. Will we elect political parties who have the understanding of physics and economics we need, and the courage to do things differently? Or will we elect politicians who double down on the old and dying linear economic system.
New Zealand has to go circular, people. And we need our politicians to say so.
——–
AI Disclaimer: AI (Claude) was used to support the research in this article and write the first draft which was then edited by Go Well.
Written by Nick Morrison, Founding Director at Go Well Consulting.