Abstract
This forum article contributes to the prospering debate in the circular economy (CE) community discussing whether—and to what extent—the CE is reconcilable with economic growth. Within this discourse about a functional CE, there exist two contesting perspectives. One argues in favor of pro‐growth circularity, the other in favor of post‐growth circularity. The aim of this article is to develop a line of argumentation that helps in reconciliating the two seemingly antagonistic perspectives. Toward that end, this article applies the method of “practical syllogism” that is well known in moral philosophy, since it can enlighten how normative and positive arguments can be structured to enable the formulation of well‐justified moral conclusions. With the help of this interdisciplinary impulse, the article aims at detecting logical errors in current reasoning and fostering discursive learning processes. The ensuing arguments provide vital implications on the macro level by highlighting four critical elements to facilitate a CE transition, namely an intensive growth trajectory, an internalization of negative externalities through creating (missing) markets, an institutional encouragement of spreading positive externalities, and a diffusion of rents from innovation to society by taking the profit motive into service for enabling sustainability goals. Complementarily, the article provides implications on the micro level by highlighting the necessity to develop supplementary management competencies, namely governance competence to realize argumentative clarification and governance competence to (re‐)configurate institutional structures. This article may serve as an incubator to ease new ways of thinking into academia and practice.