Schilling and colleagues (Reference Schilling, Ritter, Kühner, Hirschberger, Zacher and Kauffeld2026) make an interesting and compelling case for integrating the mindset and concepts associated with the circular economy (CE) using the strengths of the field of I-O psychology. We agree that using such frameworks could prove fruitful for both research and practice, but not necessarily for the same reasons. In fact, we would argue that I-O psychologists have already been applying these concepts in their talent management work for a very long time, even if they have been underused, understudied, and discussed using different terms. To make this point, we briefly discuss how I-O psychologists have made use of versions of the 4 Rs described as foundational concepts of the CE. Specifically, we reframe these concepts not as things humans do to the material world but as things organizations (and frequently human resource divisions) do to working people. The reframe of how restructuring talent-related work in I-O psychology according to the R-strategies is directly aligned to the social pillar of the CE. We further argue that organizations who treat their people as resources to extract and then discard are unlikely to build cultures that support and implement CE regardless of how much I-O research practice is used to support the implementation. That is, effective implementation of the 4 Rs in talent management is a vital part of achieving a sustainable organizational culture. We do acknowledge that in this reframing of the 4 Rs we take concepts designed for products and materials, and apply them to human actors with intentions, agency, and consciousness. Our applications are meant to be illustrative more than comprehensive, and further work would need to be done to unpack the implications of these distinctions more fully.

First, reduce can be thought of as lowering unnecessary “talent extraction” and preventing avoidable “human-capability waste.” I-O psychologists have well-developed theories and evidence concerning why people leave organizations and how organizations can design environments to retain their human capital. For example, research on voluntary turnover shows that exits are often predictable and shaped by shocks, scripts, and decision pathways (Lee & Mitchell, Reference Lee and Mitchell1994). Similarly, job embeddedness research highlights the web of links, fit, and sacrifice that keeps people in place, thus reducing the likelihood of unwanted exits (Mitchell et al., Reference Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski and Erez2001). On the involuntary turnover side, work on responsible restructuring (Cascio, Reference Cascio2002) offers alternatives to layoffs, such as retraining or redeployment, which prevent unnecessary workforce losses and minimize “talent leakage.” Moreover, the increasing emphasis on workforce planning contributes toward efforts to reduce talent loss by proactively addressing workforce needs, ensuring that talent is strategically retained and deployed (Ployhart & Morris, Reference Ployhart, Morris and Morris2024; Schweyer, Reference Schweyer2004). These strategies aim to prevent the “waste” of talent, ensuring that capability stays within the system and isn’t prematurely discarded. Although many of these ideas are well-established in I-O psychology, the circular economy framework encourages a more focused approach to how organizations can design systems that minimize avoidable talent loss and sustain capability over time. For an organization hoping to build a CE culture, the degree to which it clearly and thoughtfully implements reduce in these ways should influence employee commitment to the organization’s values.

The reuse aspect of the CE perspective takes this a step further by actively repurposing talent within the organization. Similar to the circular economy process of moving materials into new uses with minimal reprocessing, internal mobility, redeployment, and project-based staffing all serve as natural reuse mechanisms. This process can even begin prior to organizational entry through intentional structuring and use of recruitment and selection systems. Retaining application data and interest from previous searches to fast track viable candidates is one way to reuse effort from both employees and applicants in the system. Research on internal mobility shows that internal transfers and promotions often lead to better performance outcomes compared to external hires (Bidwell, Reference Bidwell2011), as employees are already embedded in the organization and possess firm-specific knowledge. Moreover, research on human capital redeployment (Sabel & Sasson, Reference Sabel and Sasson2023) highlights how organizations, particularly those with multiple business units, are increasingly redeploying talent across different divisions to maximize value. With the rise of talent marketplaces and internal gig platforms, organizations are developing flexible systems that enable the redeployment of workers to meet changing business needs, ensuring that skills are used efficiently within the company. Additionally, organizations could consider temporary outplacement of employees to other organizations in the value chain. This not only serves to use skills efficiently, but it maintains the talent within the industry and may make the system more effective by sharing knowledge of internal systems. By reframing this as reuse, the CE framework offers a valuable perspective on how organizations can optimize internal talent mobility to retain knowledge, reduce recruitment costs, and improve long-term performance. This use of reuse sends a clear message that the people should not just be discarded when there is a change to a business unit or the need for different kinds of labor in different places in the organization. It also respects the effort put into applying for jobs by applicants as relevant to the overall system.

Recycle, from a human capital-centered perspective, focuses on refreshing and rebuilding capability through reskilling and upskilling efforts. As technology and job roles evolve, so must workers’ skills. Like recycling materials that have become obsolete or degraded, organizations must invest in upgrading skills to ensure that both they and their employees remain current, relevant, and viable in the broader market. This is especially critical in the modern economy where job roles are constantly being reshaped by advances in technology. The training and development literature provides robust evidence of the value of reskilling programs, particularly when they’re well-designed and effective in promoting the translation of those skills to actual job performance (Blume et al., Reference Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang2010). One set of these important skills would be the sustainability-related skills that Schilling et al., discuss in their focal article. For example, training transfer research has identified factors like work environment and transfer climate as being crucial to whether new skills actually “stick” on the job (Grossman & Salas, Reference Grossman and Salas2011). The concept of self-regulated learning highlights how individuals can take ownership of their skill development, directing their own learning pathways within the organizational context (Payne et al., Reference Payne, Youngcourt and Beaubien2007). Furthermore, job crafting theories show that employees can actively reconfigure their roles to incorporate newly acquired skills, making the process of recycling capability a distributed effort (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, Reference Wrzesniewski and Dutton2001). However, there’s still work to be done. Although we have substantial evidence on the mechanics of learning and transfer, there is a need for more research on how job crafting and learning culture intersect to make recycled capabilities more easily integrated back into the workforce. Systems that give credit and support for these job crafting efforts are also limited. Taking on a CE perspective on recycle could perhaps help to better show the value of these policies and procedures to academics and practitioners alike.

Finally, recover is where the CE approach to talent management becomes especially compelling. Recovering value in people who have been displaced, whether through layoffs, retirements, or career breaks, is critical for organizations that want to capitalize on “wasted” talent. Instead of treating laid-off employees or retirees as resources with no further value, organizations can recover this talent by bringing it back into the fold. A great example of this is boomerang employees, individuals who leave the organization but who later return (Shipp et al., Reference Shipp, Furst-Holloway, Harris and Rosen2014). Studies show that boomerangs can outperform new hires, especially when their firm-specific knowledge and relationships are central to success (Keller et al., Reference Keller, Kehoe, Bidwell, Collings and Myer2021). Similarly, research on returnships and alumni programs highlights how organizations can recover value from former employees, keeping those relationships alive in ways that benefit both sides (Arora, Reference Arora2021; Makarius et al., Reference Makarius, Dachner and Brymer2025; Padula, Reference Padula1994). Research on employee referral systems (Schlachter & Pieper, Reference Schlachter and Pieper2019) shows how existing employees can help recover external talent, providing a smoother path for reentry. These systems also demonstrate respect and value for the judgment and networks of current employees. Moreover, acquiring talent from large-scale layoffs, such as those in the tech industry, has proven valuable for smaller firms and startups, which can quickly integrate highly skilled workers from larger corporations. However, this process is not without challenges. Negative stigma and signaling effects, where long periods of unemployment or exit from one firm create doubts about a candidate’s value, can reduce the effectiveness of talent recovery (Kroft et al., Reference Kroft, Lange and Notowidigdo2013). This suggests that organizational processes designed to counter stigma and reintegrate workers fairly are crucial for maximizing the potential of recovered talent. The recover concept, then, could be utilized to help focus attention on not just rehiring, but also on creating systems that allow displaced or retired workers to re-enter and thrive in the talent ecosystem. An organization dedicated to the concept of recovery would not just focus on the recovering of talent into the company, but it would also focus on the socialization and status of those employees.

In sum, I-O psychology has substantial experience that maps onto the CE’s 4 Rs, even if our field has not historically used CE framing in how we discuss these policies and procedures. That said, a CE approach to talent management could help to integrate these disparate literatures, highlight what works and what doesn’t, and shine a light on areas that remain under-researched. These areas include downsizing avoidance and “responsible restructuring” as a sustainability strategy, cross-organizational reuse mechanisms and their human consequences, and recovery processes that fairly and effectively reintegrate displaced workers. If adopting a CE mindset helps organizations in terms of retaining and regenerating value, then this is a perspective that should be taken seriously by I-O psychologists in their talent management work as well.