Towards an Education for a Circular Economy: Mapping Teaching Practices in a Transitional Higher Education System

Abstract

The circular economy (CE) represents a transformative approach to sustainability, emphasizing the reduction in waste and the continual use of resources. Higher education institutions (HEIs) play a crucial role in disseminating knowledge and fostering skills for CE. Nevertheless, little consideration has been given to how CE education is presented, advanced, or cultivated within transitional or resource-constrained systems. This study investigates the current state of integration of CE principles into teaching practices within HEIs in Albania, an emergent EU candidate, representing post-communist and developing contexts. Using a mixed-methods approach, it maps current pedagogical frameworks, identifies challenges, and offers strategic recommendations. The study included 252 students who studied in public and private HEIs in Albania, 27 academics teaching in these institutions, and 15 stakeholders grounded in the quadruple helix model. Findings reveal uneven incorporation of CE concepts across disciplines and limited institutional support, but also spotlight emerging innovations, especially in interdisciplinary approaches and student-led sustainability projects. Conceptual frameworks for mapping CE education, as well as for advancing it, are proposed, offering transferable tools for institutions in comparable systems. This research contributes to global efforts to mainstream CE in higher education by showcasing the specific pathways, gaps, and opportunities that characterize transitional contexts. The Albanian case offers insight into how low-resource higher education systems can position themselves as agents of circular transformation despite policy, capacity, and curricular constraints.

1. Introduction

The transition to a circular economy (CE) is widely acknowledged. It has been considered as a critical route towards the fulfilment of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1,2,3,4], especially SDG 12 on responsible consumption and production. Scholars argue that CE is a system aimed at maintaining the value of products, materials, and resources for a longer period. Others argue that it provides a critical framework for reconsidering production, consumption, and waste management [5]. Furthermore, the CE emphasizes taking waste out of systems design by promoting resource efficiency and fostering innovative, sustainable business models [6].

Following the global movement from linear models of production and consumption, higher education institutions (HEIs) are perceived as crucial promoters of this transformative movement [7,8,9]. They do this by qualifying students with the knowledge, skills, competencies, and attitudes required to comprehend and implement CE principles. HEIs can cultivate the future generations of trailblazers who are competent to lead a fundamental transformation towards sustainability [10,11,12,13]. Consequently, integrating concepts, principles, and practices of CE and sustainability into HEIs has become a necessity for the development of sustainable business practices and models [14,15,16,17]. Addressing this requirement, many HEIs in Europe have initiated the integration of CE into the curriculum by using tools such as integrated teaching, challenge-based learning, and experiential simulations [11,18]. Nevertheless, education for the circular economy (ECE) is a recently developed research area, and studies are limited and fragmented, requiring a holistic frame of reference [19]. ECE portrays the educational paths for academics to enhance the transformation towards the CE [11]. In this regard, Renfors [19] emphasizes the necessity of a systemic perspective for incorporating CE competencies into curricula and the involvement of innovative teaching approaches. Moreover, following the [20] perspective of the CE system as operating at micro–meso–macro levels, [19]. Renfors [19] advocates for having all three levels incorporated into the ECE curricula. This enhances dialogue and co-learning among the dialogue and co-learning that is promoted through diverse stakeholders to foster comprehension of circularity.

Regardless of this global impulse, the inclusion of ECE is still different across different regions. Exceedingly, research as well as reforms of education have been addressed in developed countries, where institutional capability, endorsements, academic knowledge, and consciousness have driven innovation in sustainability education [21]. On the other hand, in emerging transitional economies, ECE is mainly fragmented, underfunded, or vague in the core curriculum [22]. This disparity brings up a shortcoming in comprehending how ECE develops and progresses in different contexts, especially in those where policy transformation and institutional adaptation are deliberate and systemic limitations are distinct.

Albania, as a Western Balkan (WB) country aspiring to be part of the European Union (EU), showcases an invaluable opportunity for investigating this gap. With a higher education system (HES) experiencing modernisation in addition to its socio-economic transitions, this country relates to many of the opportunities and challenges common to other post-socialist and developing countries.

In the last few years, it has been observed that there has been an increase in environmental sustainability (ES) consciousness, with policies aligning with the EU sustainability agendas in Albania. Nevertheless, the scope at which HEIs are endorsing and promoting CE principles in their teaching and learning practices remains unknown. Hence, this study aims to map the teaching and learning practices of CE in the Albanian HEIs through seeking answers to the following research questions:

• RQ1. To what extent are CE-related content and competencies incorporated into HEIs’ curriculum?
• RQ2. What teaching and learning approaches are employed to deliver this content?
• RQ3. What challenges and opportunities do educators face in integrating a circular mindset, skills, and attitudes?

By assessing prevailing practices through surveying students, academics, and other stakeholders, this study comes up with a context-sensitive and transferable framework for mapping ECE. Investigating a national case thoroughly supports a comprehensive integration of ECE discourse throughout various and especially understated HEIs. The findings provide practical implications for curriculum designers, policy-makers, and international institutions aiming to advance ES and ECE globally.

2. Study Background

2.1. Conceptual Underpinning of Education for Circular Economy

The CE analysed throughout the micro–meso–macro framework linking individual competences, institutional practices, and systemic governance [20,23]. ECE extends sustainability education by cultivating systems thinking, collaboration, and entrepreneurial competencies [13,19,24]. The proposed conceptual model (Figure 1) aligns with the following dimensions: curriculum integration (RQ1) at the micro-level, innovative pedagogy (RQ2) at the meso-level, and stakeholder policy alignment (RQ3) at the macro-level, positioning higher education institutions as catalysts of circular transformation.

At the micro-level, integrating CE principles into higher education curricula builds essential competencies, including systemic thinking, critical reflection, and entrepreneurial problem-solving. These competences enable students to address sustainability challenges with innovative and adaptive strategies [13,19,24]. At the meso-level, HEIs foster CE through pedagogical innovation, such as interdisciplinary and experiential learning, project-based collaboration, and industry partnerships. Such practices strengthen institutional capacity to act as active agents of transition [25,26]. At the macro-level, the integration of the CE in HEIs depends on alignment with national and international policies and on collaboration across the quadruple helix—academic, industry, government, and civil society [27]. This alignment ensures responsiveness to social-economic and governance demands while addressing barriers such as limited institutional resources and fragmented regulations [17,20]. Collectively, these three levels illustrate how HEIs act as catalysts for systematic transformation towards a CE.

2.2. ECE: Competencies, Teaching and Learning Approaches, and Challenges

Competences are the accomplishment capability of students following the conclusion of their educational activities [28]; however, few scholars have focused on determining and describing CE competences [29]. In this context, ref. [30] point out that CE needs more resource management and systems thinking competencies compared to other sectors of the economy. Other scholars, in addition to these two competencies, emphasize the need for the development of competencies like circular production and product design, circular business models, circular economy communication, and circular economy collaboration through the teaching and learning activities designed for CE courses [29,30,31,32]. Furthermore, in other studies, green marketing and market knowledge, circular impact assessment, circular user engagement, and circular materials and manufacturing are determined as CE competencies to be taught [29,30,32].

In the literature observed by [19], on the foundational competencies for ECE in HEIs, four key thematic areas of competencies have been identified:

• Resource management and circular design is a group of competencies related to the design of circular products, services, and processes, such as follows: eco-design; design thinking; lifecycle assessment (LCA); circular product design; upcycling; remanufacturing; sustainable product development; closing material loops; waste prevention strategies; system design and innovation; and circular product–service systems.
• Systems thinking competencies needed to comprehend and model systemic interactions and closed-loop industrial systems, such as the following: systems optimization; interdisciplinary thinking; resource flow analysis; resilience thinking; macro-systemic and intersectoral understanding; life-cycle thinking; resilience thinking; and critical systems reflection.
• Business models and entrepreneurship competencies shape and appraise sustainable, circular business opportunities, such as the following: circular business model innovation; strategic planning in circular contexts; business modelling tools; value creation and delivery in circular systems; feasibility analysis; decision-making under sustainability constraints; entrepreneurial opportunity recognition; and financing for circular ventures.
• Collaboration, leadership, and critical thinking are cross-cutting competencies that are essential to lead, contemplate, and move in uncertain sustainability contexts, such as follows: teamwork and collaboration; leadership for sustainability transitions; critical and strategic thinking; ethical reflection and systems ethics; interdisciplinary collaboration; conflict negotiation and facilitation; communication and team leadership; self-direction and adaptive learning; and reflective practice and lifelong learning.

In this perspective, teaching the CE is ambitious due to its systemic complexity and the engagement and participation of various stakeholders [19,26,29]. Hence, merely theoretical teaching approaches do not enable advancements in competencies and a proper learning of CE [33], so a multipurpose learning setting is needed to enable the progress of experts with CE competencies [33,34]. Therefore, in addition to recognizing pivotal CE competencies, it is crucial to use an appropriate teaching and learning approach [29]. Similarly, Renfors [19] claimed that an effective CE education requires a comprehensive, multidisciplinary, experiential, and systems-focused approach, where leading strategies and their methods can be categorized in four main areas:

• Active and experiential methods, including teaching and learning approaches by using practical, real-world, reflection, and immersion in context methods, which combine the theoretical part with practical application, such as learning by doing; experiential learning; field trips; studio work; design class; active learning; post-qualitative inquiry; laboratory exercise; and ethnography.
• Simulation-based teaching and learning approaches equip students with comprehensive reflection abilities and skills to connect amongst diverse stakeholders by taking into consideration the macro-level implications of decision-making, which stipulate students’ experimentation under diverse scenarios, understanding systemic complexity, and practicing long-term planning and decision-making in a safe environment, through methods such as follows: gaming; serious gaming; business gaming; scenario building; board games; and tournaments.
• Team-based and collaborative teaching and learning approaches are pivotal in advancing knowledge transfer and dissemination, as students are exposed to integrative and multidisciplinary teams to boost their exposure to a variety of viewpoints and promote in-depth understanding. The teaching and learning approaches for this method are as follows: collaborative learning; project-based learning; challenge-based learning; participatory learning; group discussions; workshops; report writing; and essays; these are mainly implemented to promote co-learning and build up the collaborative perspective that is critical in developing circular practices.
• Co-learning environments and industry cooperation emphasize teaching and learning practices that are frequently held outside of the classroom by interacting with the industry, experts, and real-world settings. Internships, mentoring, industry interviews and engagement, masterclasses, guest speakers, open educational resources, living labs, stakeholder discussion and engagement, excursions, expert panels, exhibitions, and factory tours are among the approaches implemented to connect HEIs with industry.

Table 1. Summary of competency areas and respective teaching and learning approaches. Source: Adapted from [19].

Competency	Key Elements	Description	Teaching and Learning Approaches	Authors
Resource Management and Circular Design	Eco-design, design thinking, LCA, upcycling, remanufacturing, sustainable product development, closing material loops, and waste elimination.	Focus on sustainable product development, material flow optimization, recycling, and resource efficiency.	Project-based learning, experiential learning, design class, studio work, workshops, serious gaming, simulation, and field trips.	[16,18,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46]
Systems Thinking	Systems optimization, life-cycle thinking, resilience thinking, complexity and interconnectedness, and critical systems reflection.	Understanding interrelations in material, energy, and waste systems; decision-making based on system-wide perspectives.	Simulation-based learning, scenario building, participatory learning, flipped classroom, and collaborative and challenge-based learning.	[11,26,34,47,48,49,50,51]
Business Models and Entrepreneurship	Circular business models, supply chain and value chain innovation, entrepreneurship, market creation, and financial and impact assessment.	Developing competence in designing, implementing, and scaling CE business solutions across industries.	Problem-based learning, business gaming, internships, mentoring, masterclasses, guest speakers, industry engagement, and pitching.	[11,34,39,48,51,52,53]
Collaboration, Leadership, and Critical Thinking	Teamwork, leadership, stakeholder engagement, ethical reflection, policy literacy, governance, creativity, problem-solving, and critical thinking.	Fostering collaborative and reflective capacities to lead transitions and engage diverse stakeholders in CE contexts.	Collaborative learning, ethnography, expert panels, report writing, essays, panel debates, stakeholder engagement, living labs, and excursions.	[11,18,41,44,47,48,49,50]

provides an overview of the competency areas and the respective teaching and learning approaches that have been explored by several influential scholars. In addition to the substantial development of ECE, scholars recognize many consistent challenges that prevent its effective incorporation into HEIs, which are mostly observed in developing countries. The main obstacles involve a lack of institutional policies [11,18,19], complexity and assessment problems [11,13,19], inadequate training for educators [11,19], resources, time constraints, limited interdisciplinary collaboration [35], and a lack of student engagement [35,36,37].

2.3. Overview of the Albanian Context and the Research Gap

In Albania, the CE research is still emerging, with scholars mainly focusing their research on the barriers and challenges of circular business modelling adoption from the industry, potential opportunities focusing on how industry and government can benefit from the CE practices on innovation, and sustainable development [54,55,56,57,58,59]. From this perspective, the incorporation of CE concepts and topics into the curriculum of HEIs has remained restricted and under investigation. Furthermore, the absence of a national-level strategy for CE education is evident, and a standardized framework to foster CE integration into HEIs’ curricula is needed [60]. CE education is immediately required to handle gaps in key economic areas, such as agriculture, tourism, and manufacturing [56]. Recent studies reveal that CE is mainly integrated in specific courses in environmental engineering, architecture, or business studies programmes with a focus on sustainability [61]. Even though some of the HEIs engage in EU-funded projects, these project-based initiatives have not been incorporated properly into the curriculum [60]. The evidence shows that these challenges are present not only in Albania. Western Balkan higher education systems face structural constraints in quality, internationalization, and capacity-building, which slow down the systematic curriculum renewal for CE.

Currently, the implemented teaching practices and perspectives vary among HEIs, with most of them needing an interdisciplinary approach and a consistent curricular strategy to empower a holistic comprehension of circularity and the development of its competencies [61]. Regardless of the (2020–2035) national plan for integrating waste management and its aspiring targets on recycling and waste reduction [62], a direct link to HEIs’ strategies and curriculum integration to guarantee the advancement of future professionals with CE skills and competencies is missing [60].

The current study aims to bridge the gap in the literature by providing a more comprehensive perspective on ECE in the Albanian HEIs through surveying the attitudes of students regarding their experiences, academics’ practices, and stakeholders’ perspectives with a context-sensitive and transferable framework for mapping ECE.

Moreover, this gap contemplates wider trends in the WBs, where educational transformation in sustainability is progressing slowly and often without the data necessary to guide strategic development. Hence, Albania represents a critical case for acknowledging how ECE integrates into underserved but progressive systems.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design and Rationale

This study adopted an explanatory mixed-methods design to investigate how CE principles are integrated within Albanian HEIs. The explanatory orientation reflects the aim, to account for patterns of awareness, pedagogical practice, and institutional readiness, rather than merely documenting their existence. By integrating qualitative and quantitative data that emerged from student and staff surveys and insights from stakeholders, the design facilitated a multi-level explanatory framework spanning the micro- (student awareness), meso- (academic/practitioner), and macro- (stakeholder governance/policy) domains [63,64,65]. The research design aligns with the literature advocating for methodological integration in circular economy education, allowing for a holistic understanding of pedagogical, institutional, and policy-level challenges [11,66,67,68]. The design also supports contextual sensitivity, given Albania’s transitional educational landscape [69].

3.2. Sampling Strategy

A purposive sampling strategy was employed to capture explanatory variation across institutional settings and disciplinary areas. The final sample comprised 252 undergraduates and postgraduates from diverse HEIs in Albania; a total of 27 academic staff engaged in sustainability or related teaching; and 15 representatives from academia (n = 4), government (n = 2), industry (n = 5), and civil society (n = 4) contributed to a national roundtable discussion. This strategy ensured the inclusion of perspectives necessary for explaining CE integration processes across multiple levels.

All participants were informed of the study’s objectives and provided written or digital consent. Surveys were administered anonymously via Google Forms, and roundtable contributions were anonymized in reporting. The study adhered to the British Educational Research Association [70] guidelines, ensuring confidentiality, voluntary participation, and academic integrity.

3.3. Data Collection Techniques

The primary data were gathered by employing student and staff surveys separately and a stakeholders’ roundtable. This technique facilitated a multi-level examination of CE integration in Albanian HEIs, spanning the micro- (student awareness), meso- (staff pedagogy), and macro- (stakeholder governance) domains.

The student survey (Appendix A), comprising 24 items, enabled the explanation of patterns of CE knowledge that emerged throughout their learning experiences. The survey contained Likert scale items, categorical questions, and open-ended responses, covering awareness, exposure to CE, and perceived learning barriers. Data was collected through Google Forms between February and May 2025. At the same time, a parallel instrument was administered to academic staff members that was focused on explaining how CE is embedded within teaching practices, what institutional or curricular barriers inhibit integration, and what pedagogical approaches are being trialled. In addition, a facilitated session titled ‘Quadruple Helix Synergies for Circular Economy and Sustainability’ brought together 15 participants from academia, the government, industry, and civil society. The roundtable generated exploratory insights into the systematic enablers and inhibitors of CE at the macro-level. Furthermore, a critical review of the academic and policy literature was conducted to contextualize Albanian findings, benchmark international trends, and strengthen the explanatory power of the study [19,71,72].

3.4. Survey Validation and Reliability

Survey instruments were validated through pilot testing with 20 students and 5 staff members. Pilot participants reviewed question clarity, interpretability, and cultural appropriateness. Their feedback informed minor modifications to wording and sequencing.

3.5. Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to explain patterns across groups. Frequencies and percentages were used for categorical variables (e.g., adaptation of teaching methods and exposure to CE).

Qualitative data from open-ended survey responses and the roundtable were thematically analyzed, focusing on explanatory themes such as institutional readiness, barriers to curricular reform, and stakeholders’ engagement. These qualitative insights were juxtaposed with quantitative findings to generate multi-level explanations of CE education challenges and opportunities. Figure 2 shows how the student survey, staff survey, and stakeholders roundtable feed into the descriptive and thematic analysis, structured at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels, leading to an explanatory synthesis of CE integration in the HEIs.

4. Results

As mentioned in Section 3.2, the purposive sampling technique comprised 252 undergraduates and postgraduates from diverse HEIs in Albania; a total of 27 academic staff engaged in sustainability or related teaching; and 15 representatives from academia (n = 4), the government (n = 2), industry (n = 5), and civil society (n = 4) contributed to a national roundtable discussion. Results are presented in both numbers and percentages. For some questions, respondents were allowed to select multiple options. Section 4.1 outlines the key results that emerged from the students’ responses. On the other hand, in Section 4.2, results from the academic staff responses have been provided. In Section 4.3, we have presented findings from the roundtable discussion.

4.1. Findings from Student Responses

As mentioned in Section 3.2, a total of 252 students participated in the study, forming a diverse sample that reflects various academic disciplines and institutional backgrounds.

Table 2. Overview of participants’ demographic characteristics. Source: Authors.

Category	Subcategory	Frequency (n = 252)	Percentage %
Gender	Male	81	32.1%
	Female	171	67.9%
Age Group	<20	21	8.3%
	20–21	190	75.3%
	22+	41	16.3%
Level of studies	Bachelor	241	95.6%
	Master	11	4.4%
Study Programme	Business Informatics	186	73.8%
	Business Admin/Marketing	32	12.7%
	International Marketing and Logistics	22	8.7%
	Software Engineering	7	2.8%
	Economics/Banking and Finance	5	3.2%

presents the demographic characteristics of the 252 student participants in the survey, including gender, age, level of studies, and study programme. Frequency (n) and percentage (%) are reported for each category. There is a clear indication that 68% of participants were female, while 32% were male, out of a total of 252 participants. Regarding age, the majority of respondents were between 19 and 21 years old. In terms of the level of studies, around 96% were Bachelor’s students, while 4% were Master’s students. In addition, the results show a diverse representation of students from various study programmes, including Business Informatics, Business Administration, Software Engineering, Banking and Finance, Economics, and International Management Logistics.

The second part of the questionnaire focused specifically on the concept of the CE. It included a series of questions aimed at assessing students’ awareness, knowledge, and attitudes towards CE principles and practices. Results show that 51% of the students were familiar with the “linear economy” and “circular economy” concepts, while 49% had no prior knowledge. This highlights the need for curricula changes, including the integration of relevant case studies in courses where these concepts are applicable. Enhancing course content, training instructors, and promoting practical applications of CE will be the right path to raise awareness and preparedness among students.

Regarding understanding of the term Circular Economy, students’ responses reflected a clear focus on core sustainability concepts. As shown in Figure 3, the most indicative words used to describe the circular economy are as follows: recycle, reuse, reduce, sustainability, regenerate, and efficiency. This indicates some awareness or a basic understanding of the principles of the circular economy. The words recycle, reuse, and reduce indicate students’ perception of relating the term circular economy to practices aimed at minimizing waste and maximizing the use of resources. While the words related to sustainability, regeneration, and efficiency suggest that the students related the term circular economy to economic efficiency and long-term resource management. However, a further analysis is needed to understand whether these students have an understanding of the term on a deeper level.

Table 3. Summary of CE competencies and exposure. Source: Author.

Indicator	Answers	Percentage (%)
Exposed to CE at the University	Yes	57.1%
	No	42.9%
Courses or subjects related to Circular Economy attended.	Through university courses	35.7%
	Through course projects/assignments or thesis	13.1%
	Case studies and real-world examples	19.8%
	Guest lectures or industry experts	14.3%
	Through extracurricular activities	4%
	Through personal interest/research	13.1%
Importance of education in helping understanding CE principles	Very important	14.7%
	Important	34.1%
	Moderately important	34.9%
	Slightly important	7.9%
	Not at all important	8.3%
Importance of Sustainability in Field	Very important	38.9%
	Important	40.9%
	Moderately important	17.5%
	Slightly important	2.7%
	Not at all important	0%

provides information regarding the familiarity and exposure of students to the concept of circular economy. The students were asked questions such as whether they have been exposed to the term circular economy at university. The answers of the respondents indicate that 57.1% of them said yes, and 42.9% responded with no, out of the 252 participants. This highlights a moderately positive trend, where most students are familiar with the concept of the circular economy.

However, a significant number of these students responded no, which might raise concerns about inconsistencies in curriculum implementation. Education was considered moderately important by 34.9% of students, important by 34.1%, and very important by 14.7% in helping them understand CE principles. While most students acknowledge the importance of education in helping them understand circular economy (CE) principles, the relatively low percentage who view it as very important suggests a need to strengthen and expand the integration of sustainability and circular economy topics within higher education curricula. The inclusion of the circular economy in higher education can be in different forms, such as through university courses, course projects, assignments or theses, guest lectures, etc. Regarding what courses or subjects related to the circular economy they have attended, most respondents, around 35.7%, responded through university courses, followed by 19.8% through case-studies and real-world examples, 14.3% through guest lectures or industry experts, 13.1% through course projects/assignments or theses, 13.1% through personal interest, and 4% through extracurricular activities. These results indicate that, right now, according to students’ opinion, the primary source of information about the circular economy are university courses. A relatively low level of extracurricular activities indicates that universities should increase students’ engagement with more engaging activities in this field. In addition, there is a need for universities to follow a holistic and multi-dimensional approach to circular economy education.

As shown in Figure 4, out of a total of 252, students believe circular economy education primarily helps in raising consumer awareness about recyclable goods (58%), it helps learners become experts and researchers in CE (32%), and it encourages individuals to act as recyclers or be thriftier (10%). This suggests that while education succeeds in raising awareness, it is seen as less effective in fostering behavioural change or developing deep expertise, highlighting a need for a more practical approach.

However, Figure 5 outlines challenges affecting the teaching of circular economy in universities; out of 252 students, 41.7% of the students highlight limited integration into the curriculum, followed by insufficient resources and materials (26.6%), a lack of qualified instructors (20.6%), and a lack of interdisciplinary approaches (11.1%). Therefore, the results indicate there is a need for higher curriculum integration, resource allocation, and educator training to ensure that CE education becomes more accessible, comprehensive, and impactful.

Results also identify four key drivers, outlined in Figure 6, of a successful transition towards circular economy education. It shows that a successful transition to a circular economy requires systematic changes, including improved education and awareness campaigns (30%), stronger policies and regulations (29%), enhanced recycling infrastructure (26%), and greater encouragement of sustainable production practices by businesses (15%). Together, these priorities suggest that students view the circular economy not merely as an individual responsibility but as a structural transformation that requires action across sectors and institutions.

Overall, results reveal a positive student perception of CE education, especially regarding its values and goals. Many students agree that CE education fosters responsibility, stewardship, and resilience, and encourages collaboration with the local community. However, there is less confidence when it comes to the implementation of the CE concept, suggesting a gap between theory and practice. Responses are more mixed on structural aspects: a considerable number of students remain neutral or express disagreement about whether CE is integrated into curricula, syllabuses, extracurricular activities, or university strategic plans, indicating that CE is still not fully embedded institutionally. Furthermore, a significant portion of students believe that CE topics are inadequately or ineffectively covered, while others recognize some integration in courses and projects. This leads to a clear gap between students’ strong recognition of the importance of circular economy principles and their limited curricular exposure to them. Overall, students acknowledge the value of CE education, but their responses point to a need for stronger curricular integration, practical application, and institutional commitment.

4.2. Findings from Academic Staff Responses—Academics’ Practices of ECE

The survey conducted among the academic staff across various HEIs in Albania included 27 responses, with the data collected through a Google Form. The objective was to understand how topics related to the circular economy and environmental sustainability are integrated into their teaching practices.

Table 4. Demographic profile of academic respondents (N = 27). Authors’ research results.

Attribute	Category	Frequency (N)
Institution	Private University	10
	Public Universities	8
	Other	9
Faculty/ Discipline	Business and Economics	21
	Engineering	3
	Social Sciences/Humanities	3
Academic Position	Lecturer	17
	Assistant Professor	7
	Associate Professor	3
Teaching Experience	Less than 5 years	6
	5–10 years	11
	More than 10 years	10

outlines the demographic profile of academic staff respondents, including academics from both private and public universities, with teaching experience ranging from less than five years to over a decade, and most of the respondents were from business and economics disciplines.

The results outlined in

Table 5. Summary of results on CE integration (N = 27). Authors’ research results.

Variable	Category/Response	Frequency (N)
CE Topics Incorporated into Courses	Yes	10
	No	17
ES Topics Incorporated Into Courses	Yes	18
	No	9
Teaching Practices Implemented	CE topics integrated into other subjects	8
	Case studies related to CE	7
	Guest speakers from the CE industry or academia	7
	Graduation Projects or Theses on CE	4
	Project-based learning approaches to CE	2
	Team-based learning approaches to CE	1
	Field trips or practical exposure to CE practices	1
Circular Economy Topics Covered	Business models for a circular economy	7
	Recycling and reuse strategies	4
	Resource efficiency and waste management	4
	Policy and regulation on CE	2
	CE in energy and water use	2
	Eco-design and product lifecycle	1
	Circular supply chain management	1
Assessment Methods	Group projects/presentations	14
	Research papers or essays	11
	Student reflection/feedback	11
	Exams and quizzes	6
	Practical assignments/fieldwork	6
Teaching Resources Used	Research articles and journals	14
	Case studies from industry	14
	Academic textbooks	9
	Government policy documents, reports	6
	Videos or multimedia resources	8
	Online courses or MOOCs	2
Main Barriers to Integration	Lack of time/curriculum flexibility	16
	Insufficient teaching materials or resources	13
	Lack of expertise or training	11
	Curriculum restrictions/irrelevance	14
	Limited student interest	9
	Insufficient institutional support	3
Opportunities for Improvement	Training for faculty	17
	Development of interdisciplinary courses	17
	Collaboration with industry or NGOs	15
	Use of innovative teaching methods	14
	Curriculum reform to allow more flexibility	11
	Greater institutional support and incentives	10
Institutional Support	Yes	14
	No	1
	Not sure	12

show concerning faculty engagement with CE and ES in higher education teaching, indicating that only 10 academics currently incorporate CE topics into their courses, while the remaining 17 do not. The opposite of these is seen for environmental sustainability, where 18 responded that they do incorporate teaching, and 9 said that they do not. This shows a lack of integration of CE in higher education curricula. Among the few who include CE topics, the most common teaching practices are integration into other subjects such as economics, management, or engineering. Other practices like using case studies (7), guest speakers from the industry or academia (7), graduation projects or thesis (4), project-based learning approaches (2), team-based learning approaches (1), or field trips or practical exposures to CE practices (1). This suggests that CE is often not taught as a standalone topic but is rather embedded within broader themes. Respondents who teach CE primarily cover the following topics: business models for a circular economy, waste reduction strategies, and circular design principles. For those not incorporating CE, the main barriers cited include curriculum flexibility or restriction, insufficient teaching materials or resources, lack of expertise or training, and limited student interest and institutional support. These findings suggest both structural and informational barriers to CE adoption within higher education teaching. The results reveal that the incorporation of CE topics in Albanian higher education is currently limited. The rigid nature of curricula, combined with heavy teaching loads and limited opportunities for course redesign, often prevents instructors from embedding sustainability themes, even when they recognize their importance. Faculties that do integrate such content tend to embed it into broader subject matter rather than deliver it as a core theme. However, the selected topics by those who do teach CE suggest an orientation toward systemic understanding and industry relevance. Improvements in this area are recommended and include providing training opportunities for faculty members, developing interdisciplinary courses, fostering collaboration with industry and NGOs, adopting innovative teaching methods, introducing curriculum reforms to allow greater flexibility, and strengthening institutional support. In addition, there is a need to raise awareness of government initiatives and available support to ensure broader engagement with sustainability and circular economy principles.

Table 6. Mapping of circular economy teaching practices in Albanian HES. Source: Authors’ research results.

Category	Institutional Input	Challenges/Barriers	Opportunities for Improvement
Courses and Modules	Mainly integrated as part of other courses.	Lack of dedicated modules, rigid curricula, and limited staff expertise.	Develop new elective or core CE courses; co-design interdisciplinary modules.
Teaching Methods	Academics mostly use case studies, guest speakers, graduation projects, or theses as main teaching methods for CE.	Insufficient teaching materials or resources.	Diversify approaches and develop more accessible teaching materials and resources.
Capacity Building for Staff	Academics reported a lack of training and expertise as a barrier.	Limited professional development opportunities.	Develop CE-specific staff training programmes, possibly through EU projects.
Institutional Support and Policy	Weak or unclear support is perceived by staff.	Absence of explicit strategic frameworks.	Develop CE and sustainability strategy; allocate funding; create a sustainability hub.
Impact Assessment	Not practiced systematically; no formal assessment reported by staff.	Lack of metrics and evaluation frameworks.	Develop CE learning outcome assessment tools; track student interest in green careers.

outlines a mapping of circular economy teaching practices in Albania based on the results of both of the conducted surveys. It shows that CE in the studied institutions is still at an early stage. It is fragmented, under-resourced, and lacks institutional backing. But at the same time, there are many opportunities to strengthen it: by creating dedicated courses, improving teaching resources, training staff, setting up supportive policies, and introducing systematic assessment.

Figure 7, on the other hand, outlines key recommendations and actions that needs to be taken to enable the transition towards CE education. Suggested actions include embedding CE principles across multiple study programmes through curriculum integration, and promoting experiential learning methods such as simulations, real-life projects, and fieldwork. Faculty members would benefit from targeted training and pedagogical support, while digital tools such as MOOCs, Circulytics 2.0, and LCA software (SimaPro Craft 10.2) can enhance teaching and learning. Finally, student engagement can be fostered by encouraging extracurricular initiatives, including clubs and CE-related challenges outside the classroom.

4.3. Results of the Quadruple Helix Synergies for Circular Economy and Sustainability Roundtable

The Quadruple Helix Synergies for Circular Economy and Sustainability workshop aimed to bring a stakeholder multi-perspective view of the immersion of CE and ES within Albanian HEIs. Representatives from academia (4), industry (5), government (2), and civil society (4) participated in the workshop, and an assessment of inputs from facilitated roundtable discussions, reflection worksheets, and holistic synthesis sessions was used to categorize the results.

A consensus among participants emphasized the urgent need for “Vertical Integration” of the ECE, spanning from primary education to university curricula. The importance of “Cross-sector Collaboration”, especially among the university, industry, and government, was also stressed. Additionally, participants acknowledged the government’s role in coordinating policy tools, financial incentives, and educational reforms to enhance CE integration.

Functional and systemic challenges that arose in the workshop are as follows:

-

HEIs lack dedicated CE curricula. CE contentment is mainly provided through initiatives such as workshops or guest lectures, lacking consolidation into formal courses or study programme offerings.

-

Industry representatives noted an awareness of CE principles and emphasized the necessity for technological advancement and structural reshaping to support circular business models.

-

Vacancy of legal frameworks was recognized from a policy perspective and underlined the necessity of purposeful incentives to encourage HEIs and industry to engage with CE undertakings.

Moreover, critical gaps in skills, capabilities, and competencies relevant to CE transitions were identified during the workshop, such as follows:

-

Resource management and product design competencies, especially needed for product life extension, reuse, and recycling.

-

Leadership and management competencies regarding change, which are perceived as crucial for leading organizational and behavioural transformation.

-

Multidisciplinary competencies to implement CE principles into non-technical domains, such as law, business, and urban planning.

As a conclusion and synthesis of workshop outcomes, five strategic recommendation areas emerged:

-

Curriculum Development: Establish CE-focused modules and integrate local case studies.

Involve the industry in curriculum design to ensure alignment with labour market needs.

-

Capacity Building:

Develop interdisciplinary training for academic and industry professionals.

Promote knowledge exchange through co-taught courses and workshops.

-

Policy and Institutional Support:

Advocate for regulatory frameworks that incentivize CE integration.

Align HEI strategies with national and EU-level CE policy goals.

-

Awareness and Engagement:

Launch public campaigns and student-led initiatives on CE topics.

Institutionalize student feedback and co-creation in curriculum reform.

-

Monitoring and Improvement:

Develop systems for tracking CE literacy and employability outcomes.

Regularly revise curricula to reflect emerging trends and technologies.

A summary of the results of the Quadruple Helix Workshop is presented in Figure 8. The findings contemplate a common acknowledgment of CE as a national and institutional priority, even though it is presently under-supported. The immersion of ECE into Albanian HEIs needs a unified action across all levels of the quadruple helix. While stakeholder commitment seems robust, sustainable progress is critically associated with formal curriculum reform, inter-institutional collaboration, capacity building, and supportive policy environments.

5. Discussion

Albania’s HEIs are gradually recognizing the imperative to embed CE principles into teaching practices, and yet they face entrenched systemic challenges. Success will depend on targeted investment in staff development, curriculum redesign, and purposeful knowledge exchange across the region. These actions can address structural constraints and create a learning environment that supports transformation. Albania may refer to the EU countries’ best practices. Finland is a credible benchmark for higher education integration. It has a national project to embed circular economy learning in the whole education system and multi-university study modules that connect curricula, pedagogy, and industry partnership. These practices offer clear templates for educator training, cross disciplinary modules, and university and industry collaboration that Albania can adapt.

The proposed model (Figure 9) extends Kirchherr and Piscicelli [11] and Renfor’s [19] conceptual models. Our study extends by proposing a multi-level integrated ecosystem that links inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and impacts for HEIs in an emerging economic context. The inputs include institutional leadership and resources, academic capacity, student interest, and industry demand. In other words, inputs activate core processes, such as curriculum development, innovative pedagogy, extracurricular projects, and structured staff training. Together, they generate immediate outputs. Typically, outputs are higher levels of circular economy literacy, improved teaching capabilities, and new university–industry collaborations.

Outputs lead to short-and medium-term outcomes. Graduates develop practical circular skills. Their employability improves. Collaboration strengthens across academia, the government, and businesses. This indicates that over time, the outcomes produce long-term impacts that align with national sustainability priorities and European CE objectives.

The model is interactive. Evidence from outcomes feeds back to refine inputs and processes. This feedback loop supports continuous improvement at micro–meso–macro levels.

Findings indicate that at the micro-level, the model captures the limited but growing awareness and application of CE among students, echoing survey findings where only 51% had prior exposure and just 21% of employed students applied CE in practice. This supports the literature’s argument [11,20,71] that CE must be deeply embedded within student learning experiences to foster entrepreneurial and sustainability-oriented mindsets.

At the meso-level, the model depicts institutional dynamics, showing that while the literature supports industrial symbiosis and cross-sector learning [73,74], academic staff survey results revealed limited CE teaching integration (34.6%) and narrow disciplinary coverage. This resonates with concerns in the literature [17,75] and stakeholder feedback about rigid curricula, lack of interdisciplinary collaboration, and scarce experiential opportunities.

At the macro-level, the model highlights the systemic enablers and constraints such as fragmented governance, weak regulatory incentives, and Albania’s need to align with EU CE policies [69,72,76]. These barriers reflect the outcome of the research conducted by [67] that call for systemic reform and holistic CE integration across education and policy structures.

Thus, the model succinctly illustrates how interdependent actions across these three levels must be coordinated to foster a coherent and sustainable CE education ecosystem in Albania.

6. Conclusions

This study critically examined the integration of CE principles within Albanian HES, focusing on the three core dimensions: curriculum incorporation, pedagogical practices, and the challenges and opportunities associated with fostering a circular mindset among students and educators. Findings reveal a fragmented and uneven adoption of CE content, pedagogies, and institutional strategies across micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. At the micro-level, while the literature champions CE education as a driver of entrepreneurial thinking and sustainable behaviour [11,71], student responses showed limited exposure and application, with just over half having heard of CE and only a fifth of employed students applying CE concepts in their roles. At the meso-level, faculty engagement with CE content remains modest, with only 34.6% integrating CE into teaching, and often through narrow disciplinary lenses. This reflects broader institutional challenges, including inflexible curricula, limited interdisciplinary collaboration, and insufficient professional development [17,75]. At the macro-level, despite Albania’s aspirations to align with the EU’s circular policy frameworks [76], stakeholder dialogue underscored systemic gaps in governance, funding, and policy coordination [69,72]. This provides valuable insight into the status of CE adoption within selected Albanian HEIs, yet it is important to note that the results cannot be considered fully representative of the entire national higher education system.

The study sample, while diverse in institutional type and disciplinary focus, remains limited in scope and scale. Consequently, the results are most valid for comparable institutions rather than for Albanian HEIs. Future research incorporating a large and more heterogeneous sample across regions, disciplines, and institutional levels would be necessary to draw generalizable conclusions for the national higher education context.

Several limitations should, therefore, be acknowledged. First, the study relies primarily on self-reported data, which may reflect perceptual biases regarding the degree of CE integration rather than fully objective measures. Second, the design captures the status of the CE implementation at a single point in time, limiting ability to assess progress or longitudinal change. Third, while the mixed-methods approach enhanced depth and triangulation, the limited number of institutions constrained the extent to which findings can be extrapolated. Lastly, policy and curriculum development in Albania are undergoing rapid evolution, and hence, institutional practices observed during the research may shift in the future.

Despite these limitations, the study offers significant implementation for policy and practice. Policymakers in Albania should priorities the establishment of a coordinated national framework that embeds CE principles across higher education curricula, supported by clear learning outcomes and assessment indicators. Funding mechanisms and incentives could be introduced to encourage universities to develop interdisciplinary courses and research projects aligned with CE objectives. Furthermore, national policy could promote partnerships between HEIs, industry, and the government to facilitate applied learning opportunities and innovative ecosystems focused on circular solutions. Finally, professional development initiatives for academic staff should be strengthened to build the pedagogical capacity for teaching CE concepts effectively and fostering transformative learning.

In conclusion, while the findings provide an informative snapshot of CE integration in Albanian HEIs, they are best interpreted as an indicative rather than exhaustive representation of the national landscape. Continued empirical investigation, combined with policy support and institutional collaboration, will be essential to embed CE thinking as a core component of Albania’s sustainable higher education strategy.