Rare Earth Elements (REEs) remain a key bottleneck in the EU’s clean-tech ambitions, especially in electric vehicles (EVs), where REE-based motors and specific battery chemistries continue to underpin vital value chains. Although recycling is increasingly seen as the most promising route to reduce the EU’s dependence on China, the technical, economic, and institutional barriers that restrict REE recovery are far more deeply rooted than current policy narratives suggest. This paper investigates whether the combined influence of the 2023 Battery Regulation and the 2024 Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) can effectively promote REE circularity in Europe. Focusing on EV components, we examine three persistent obstacles: inconsistent and inadequate collection of end-of-life batteries; the low and scattered REE content in recyclable components; and chronic underinvestment in REE-specific recycling infrastructure. While the new regulatory framework introduces stronger due diligence requirements, recycled-content thresholds, and a clearer recognition of strategic dependencies, it still lacks binding REE-specific recovery targets and depends heavily on Member State enforcement capacities, which have historically varied widely.

To contextualise the EU’s efforts, the paper compares them with China’s more integrated recycling ecosystem, characterised by lifecycle traceability, high recovery standards, and closely coordinated industry practices—alongside ongoing informal-sector leakages that undermine overall efficiency. This comparison underscores both opportunities and limitations in adopting the Chinese model. Drawing indirectly on the acceleration-phase dynamics outlined by Markard et al. (2020), particularly the challenge of interactions between multiple systems, and the importance of resilience in circularity, this case study analysis indicates that the EU’s regulatory progress remains limited by broader systemic challenges and geopolitical tensions. These are not flaws of individual regulations but signs of transitions entering their acceleration phase, where incremental improvements clash with the inertia of established socio-technical systems. Consequently, we pose the question: Will recycling alone be enough to overcome the current regulatory bottleneck?

From waste to resource, composting has become a key pillar of European circular economy strategies. Embedded in EU-wide objectives on waste reduction and resource efficiency, composting represents a socio-technical transition that goes beyond technical solutions to reshape waste management systems, urban governance, and everyday practices. While European directives provide a common regulatory framework, the effectiveness of composting policies largely depends on how these objectives are translated and implemented at the local level.

This paper examines how municipalities manage the interaction between European policy frameworks, national regulations, and local governance arrangements to develop effective urban composting strategies. It addresses the following research question: how do local authorities coordinate institutional frameworks, stakeholders, and citizen engagement across governance levels to enable the uptake and stabilisation of composting practices? The analysis focuses on the capacity of municipalities to align regulatory instruments, infrastructural choices, and participatory mechanisms within a multi-level governance context.

The study adopts a comparative qualitative approach, analysing municipal composting policies in selected French and German cities. These two countries offer particularly relevant cases due to their contrasting approaches to the transposition of EU waste directives. In France, recent regulatory changes have reinforced the obligation of source separation of biowaste, often favouring proximity-based composting solutions and citizen mobilisation. In Germany, long-established sorting systems coexist with a stronger emphasis on centralised valorisation pathways, including energy recovery. These differences shape distinct local implementation patterns and highlight the differentiated ways in which EU-level objectives are operationalised at the municipal scale.

The analytical framework draws on the sustainability transitions literature, mobilising the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) developed by Geels and further elaborated by Markard and Geels. Composting is conceptualised as a niche innovation embedded within established waste management regimes and influenced by broader landscape pressures such as EU environmental targets and circular economy strategies. This perspective enables an analysis of how local composting initiatives interact with incumbent infrastructures, institutional logics, and policy mixes across governance levels.

Based on semi-structured interviews with local stakeholders and an analysis of EU, national, and municipal policy documents, the findings show that the success of composting policies is strongly conditioned by multi-level governance dynamics. Clear vertical coordination between governance levels and effective horizontal coordination between local actors emerge as key enabling factors, while fragmented governance and limited attention to behavioural dimensions tend to hinder policy effectiveness. Citizen participation appears central to the social stabilisation and long-term legitimacy of composting practices.

This text examines the interplay among politics, business interests, and ESG rulemaking, with a particular focus on the sustainability of deregulation efforts. In recent years, ESG criteria have emerged as critical factors shaping corporate governance, investment decisions, and regulatory frameworks. Concurrently, a trend toward deregulation has gained prominence. A rollback or relaxation of governmental oversight has been believed to stimulate economic growth and reduce compliance burdens. This apparent contradiction whereby emphasis on ESG coincides with deregulatory agendas raises significant legal and political questions about sustainability and the coherence of policy objectives.

The implications for legal scholarship are substantial, prompting a re-evaluation of traditional assumptions about the appropriate scope and scale of regulation versus voluntary and self-regulatory frameworks in managing ESG objectives. The paper argues for a calibrated regulatory approach, advocating neither wholesale deregulation nor rigid regulatory imposition. Instead, it suggests a balanced, integrated framework combining targeted regulatory interventions, market-based incentives, voluntary ESG standards, and heightened transparency measures. This framework can harness the benefits of deregulation innovation, flexibility while preserving essential elements of ESG accountability and rigor.

By highlighting critical factors for sustainable deregulation in ESG rulemaking, including the strength of institutional structures, the clarity and enforceability of voluntary standards, stakeholder engagement practices, and the robustness of transparency mechanisms it calls upon scholars, and policymakers to develop an adjusted regulatory ecosystems. It is meant to contribute to a broader scholarly debates on sustainable regulation, more vocal academic engagement, corporate governance innovation, a need for novelty approach to law-making, and a wider stakeholders’ participation.