Abstract
Circular economy (CE) strategies are increasingly expected to enhance resilience under geopolitical volatility, supply disruption, and critical-material insecurity. Yet CE–resilience research reports heterogeneous findings: circularity may reduce vulnerability, create brittleness, or do both under different conditions. This article argues that these findings become intelligible once specified resilience is distinguished from general resilience. CE strategies can strengthen specified resilience by reducing exposure to identifiable disruptions such as material scarcity, import dependence, or supply-chain interruption. At the same time, efficiency-oriented circularity may weaken general resilience when it narrows response diversity, reduces slack, increases coupling, or creates dependence on specialized recovery infrastructures. We explain this ambiguity by conceptualizing Circular Resilience as the governance of system options: collectively valuable capacities that preserve alternative courses of action under disturbance. Using ordonomics as an analytical lens, the framework connects operational circularity, governance, and legitimation. The article contributes to CE–resilience scholarship by showing how circularity can simultaneously enhance specified resilience and threaten general resilience, and why preserving system options depends on governance and legitimation.