Introduction

This study evaluates a pedagogical tool, Ecological Design Thinking for a Circular Economy, which applies the forest metaphor to support alternative conceptualisations of circular business. It responds to concerns that dominant circular economy (CE) discourse relies on mechanistic metaphors that reinforce linear thinking.

An exploratory comparative case study assessed workshops in 2023 (without the tool) and 2025 (with the tool). The research question examined the extent to which the tool supported new insights and discoveries.

Background

Conceptual Metaphor Theory underpins the study, recognising metaphors as cognitive structures shaping how abstract concepts are understood. The forest metaphor emphasises interconnection, non-linearity and systemic causation, contrasting with competitive and efficiency-driven framings.

Existing CE learning tools focus on business models, resource flows and innovation. However, few explicitly examine how metaphors shape CE understanding. The forest-based tool aims to enable reflexive and generative thinking through 18 structured metaphor subdomains.

Methodology

The research adopted an interpretivist epistemology and qualitative comparative case study design. Data were collected via pre- and post-programme surveys in workshops delivered by the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership.

In 2023, 19 participants completed the study (from 36 attendees). In 2025, 16 participants completed the study (from 21 attendees). Three facilitators also provided feedback in 2025. Participants were primarily professionals in business, consultancy, education and policy, mostly aged 30–50, with moderate to competent familiarity with CE.

The workshop included pre-work engagement with a forest setting, structured card-based prompts, and facilitated discussion. Surveys assessed four dimensions: workshop experience, conceptual impact, fruitfulness of the new conceptualisation and tool design.

Results

Workshop experience

Overall ratings improved in 2025 compared with 2023. Most participants rated the experience as “somewhat positive” or “very positive”. Facilitators also reported positive experiences delivering the tool-supported workshop.

Effects on the understanding of a CE

Before the workshops, most participants selected ecological experimental sentences over competitive ones (16 of 19 in 2023; 13 of 16 in 2025). The most selected sentence described CE as creating a “flourishing ecosystem”.

After the workshops, 65% (13 participants) in 2023 and 68.8% (11 participants) in 2025 reported that the session deepened their understanding of CE. Few reported no change.

Conceptual accommodation

The study applied Posner et al.’s four conditions for conceptual change: intelligibility, plausibility, dissatisfaction with old concepts and fruitfulness.

In 2023, three conditions were met, but fruitfulness was limited. Participants generated abstract ideas perceived as incompatible with competitive business realities.

In 2025, the tool enabled more concrete insights. Participants identified practical themes such as open nutrient networks, repair networks, open-source business models and community-owned infrastructure.

Reported tension between forest insights and business realities increased in 2025, yet this tension was perceived as constructive. The metaphor was rated more enriching, and participants generated more specific and implementable ideas. The fruitfulness condition was therefore considered met.

Tool design

Nineteen respondents (participants and facilitators combined) evaluated the cards positively. Enjoyment scored highest, while satisfaction was constrained by limited time. Several respondents indicated 2.5 hours was insufficient.

Participants valued the clarity, usability and inspiration generated by the cards. Feedback suggested potential for extended or post-workshop individual engagement to enhance learning outcomes.

Discussion

The tool amplified productive tension between ecological principles and current business structures, prompting critical reflection on competition, intellectual property and financial systems. Rather than reducing discomfort, the tool supported learning through challenge.

For CE education, the findings indicate that structured metaphor-based tools can enhance conceptual change and generate more actionable insights. However, further development is recommended, including expansion to address financial systems and potential adaptation for individual use.

Conclusion

The forest metaphor tool improved engagement, deepened understanding and increased fruitfulness of CE conceptualisation compared with engagement without the tool. Participants developed more concrete insights and experienced greater enrichment, despite heightened tension with prevailing business models.

The research demonstrates that ecological metaphors, when operationalised through structured tools, can support more systemic and critical circular business thinking.