In this commentary, we set out the rationale for bringing together two research fields: Water Footprint Assessment and environmental (economic) valuation, which have evolved separately. This has the potential to inform the efficient allocation of virtual water flows at a global scale. It would also address some of the aims and objectives in the Water Footprint Assessment Manual regarding the assessment of environmental impacts and their sustainability, which thus far have not been covered in the literature. We also indicate how established practice in the environmental valuation community would need to develop to facilitate productive exchange between the two fields. Finally, we outline the key developments in the non-peer reviewed grey literature that signal the merit of such an exchange.

The circular economy has gained momentum as a sustainability paradigm that aims to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation by promoting resource efficiency and waste minimization. However, mounting evidence points to a critical challenge: circular economy rebound (CER). This phenomenon occurs when efficiency improvements intended to reduce resource use provoke systemic, market, or behavioral responses that diminish or even reverse the anticipated environmental gains. This is particularly problematic within growth‐oriented economies, where resource efficiency often reinforces rather than reduces consumption. This paper draws on insights from a roundtable discussion with leading experts—Trevor Zink, David Font Vivanco, and Andrea Genovese—to critically revisit the conceptual foundations of CER, assess the latest empirical evidence, and examine the policy and market dynamics shaping its occurrence. Rather than simply summarizing the discussion, the paper integrates these expert perspectives into a broader academic framework, offering an in‐depth analysis of unresolved questions such as the role of imperfect substitution, the systemic drivers of rebound, and the extent to which alternative economic models might mitigate its effects. Addressing CER, we argue, necessitates an interdisciplinary approach, combining insights from industrial ecology, behavioral economics, and political economy. Beyond technical solutions, it requires a reassessment of the broader economic structures underpinning growth‐oriented policies. The paper concludes by proposing a research and policy agenda that prioritizes robust quantification methods, interdisciplinary collaboration, and strategic interventions aimed at aligning circular economy initiatives with genuine sustainability goals.