circular economy metrics literature review and company level classification framework

Circular economy metrics: Literature review and company-level classification framework

Circular economy metrics: Literature review and company-level classification framework

Published 2020 View Full Article

• Publications
• Publication Search
• Publication Details

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION

Ask authors/readers for more resources.

Community support

Contact the author

Find the ideal target journal for your manuscript

Explore over 38,000 international journals covering a vast array of academic fields.

Become a Peeref-certified reviewer

The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.

Related references

Advertisement

A Theoretical Framework for Circular Processes and Circular Impacts Through a Comprehensive Review of Indicators

• Review Papers
• Open access
• Published: 24 March 2022
• Volume 23 , pages 291–314, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Cris Garcia-Saravia Ortiz-de-Montellano 1 &
• Yvonne van der Meer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8230-8145 1  

11k Accesses

19 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Circular Economy (CE) is gaining traction among academics and stakeholders; however, there is no unified framework on how to assess it. This paper proposes a framework that is composed of two segments. The first segment includes circular processes based on the value retention stages of products and systems on different levels. The second segment comprises circular impacts measuring the goals of the CE concerning environmental performance, economic contribution, and social impact. There are eight clusters of circular processes: redesign, reduce, use and reuse, re-sell, refurbish and remanufacture, recycle, recover and recirculate. The review shows that there is a widely spread confusion and overlap between indicators for circular processes and circular impacts. A clear differentiation of each category can significantly improve the tools and methods through which to assess CE. This work aims to provide such differentiation and the foundation for the development of a systematic and standardised CE assessment framework. This review provides relevant guidance of circularity indicators to be used at the (re)design phase of products, materials and systems, as well as the environmental, social and economic considerations that circular strategies must have.

Graphical Abstract

Similar content being viewed by others

Nexus Between Life Cycle Assessment, Circularity, and Sustainability Indicators—Part I: a Review

The Circular Economy and Planned Sustainability

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Circular economy as an evolving study and practice field.

Circular Economy (CE) is gaining traction as a suitable framework to move our current economy to a more sustainable and resource-efficient one. It brings together different stakeholders and opens the possibility for new business models, technologies, partnerships, and economic development. CE has been diversely defined (Kirchherr et al., 2017 ), two definitions are particularly relevant: the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2013 ), which is widely used in the public spheres, and that of Kirchherr et al. ( 2017 ), which presents an academic perspective on CE (Kirchherr et al., 2017 ).

In sum, these definitions state that CE is “an economic system that is restorative and regenerative by intention and design. Based on business models that replace the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, reusing, recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes. Shifting towards renewable energies, eliminating the use of toxic chemicals and waste through the superior design to accomplish sustainable development, which implies creating environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity, to the benefit of current and future generations.” (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2013 ; Kirchherr et al., 2017 ).

The deployment of such an aim is complex, resulting in a wide array of needs, alternative business models and diverging approaches (Chiappetta Jabbour et al., 2019 ; Kalmykova et al., 2018 ). However, if CE is to be achieved, the assessment of such strategies becomes of fundamental relevance.

Current metrics to assess circularity emphasise resource efficiency. Nevertheless, this is not satisfactory (Parchomenko et al., 2019 ) as it does not allow to measure progress in the effort of maintaining the value of products, components, and materials. Furthermore, it neglects the social, economic and environmental impact that these practices can bring. This has the risk of overlooking the real change that CE strategies are making—or not. To propose CE as a viable strategy, a meaningful, reliable, transparent and accurate framework of indicators needs to be in place.

Therefore, this paper aims to present a comprehensive view of the Circular Economy as a standardised framework, with specific categories to be addressed and assessed to help practitioners move beyond organisational discourse and into ways to measure and operationalise the transition to circular systems. Furthermore, this work aims to provide the basis for the future development of an integrated assessment tool based on measurable indicators.

Indicators as Enablers of Circularity Transitions

Indicators are widely used across different sectors as a resource to highlight problems, identify trends, and formulate priorities for policymaking. They also support the processes of evaluation and monitoring of progress (Von Schirnding, 2002 ). These indicators are oftentimes arranged within analytical frameworks that have important uses in product design and policy making, such as Life Cycle Assessment (Ehrenfeld, 1997 ). However, the development of these frameworks is complex and requires attention and careful consideration. Until the date for this review, there is no standardised method for measuring the circularity of products yet (Linder et al., 2017 ). Several metrics have been proposed by various researchers (Elia et al., 2017 ; Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2015 ; Mesa et al., 2018 ; Parchomenko et al., 2019 ; Pauliuk, 2018 ; Saidani et al., 2019 ; Smol et al., 2017 ). These metrics shape the thinking and language within the concept and influence its development (Parchomenko et al., 2019 ). For this reason, a clearly defined framework of indicators is key in moving the CE forward.

Such a framework should consider the very nature of CE: a complex and interconnected system that impacts and is impacted by its socioeconomic context. This means that products and components can no longer be seen as a single unit but as part of a bigger system, and thus its assessment requires a systems perspective (Pauliuk, 2018 ; Sushil, 1990 ). This invites to design solutions that are not only technological but that include economic, social, political, cultural, and ethical aspects (World Resources Forum, 2014 ). Some authors have attempted to bring together the different aspects of CE and provide a view on their specific values for circularity. These reviews are also worthwhile to consider.

Reviews on Circular Economy

In a fast-growing study field such as CE (Türkeli et al., 2018 ), the use of reviews helps to bring scattered knowledge together. So far, these reviews have focused on two aspects: What is understood as the CE (CE conceptualisation) and how can it be measured (CE assessment).

The CE conceptualisation has been studied in the work of Kirchherr et al., which proposes a general CE definition (Kirchherr et al., 2017 ) and in the work of Prieto-Sandoval et al. that addresses the evolution of the CE and its relationship to other concepts such as eco-innovation and industrial ecology (Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018 ). For CE assessment, the work of Iacovidou et al. addresses circularity metrics specifically used in waste management systems (Iacovidou et al., 2017 ; Marić and Opazo-Basáez, 2019 ). Moraga et al. reviewed quantitative assessment methods that are used on product and material levels (Moraga et al., 2019 ). Other aspects of the CE have been addressed as well, such as the different ways in which CE indicators can be classified (Saidani et al., 2019 ); the business opportunities for the CE (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2019 ); and the evolution of the concept in the academic spheres (Merli et al., 2018 ; Türkeli et al., 2018 ). These reviews, however, have not aimed at formulating a framework that can further work as an assessment tool.

The next section describes the methods followed in compiling and classifying the papers for this review. The Results section presents a conceptualisation of the CE categories and indicators in detail, while the indicators are summarised in tables. The Discussion section elaborates on the implications, gaps, and future research derived from this review. Finally, the main outcomes of this study and their potential applications are provided in the conclusion.

Based on the definition of a systematic research review by Littel et al. ( 2008 ) and Palmatier et al. ( 2018 ), the goal of this review was to comprehensively locate, identify, classify, map and synthesise any available information concerning measuring the CE using organised, transparent, and replicable procedures at each step in the process. Two types of search were performed: (a) an academic review in scientific journals and (b) a non-academic search in reports and online sources from other relevant stakeholders.

Figure  1 shows the systematic process followed for the completion of the analysis. Further details on each part of the methodology are described below.

Process description of the methodology

Information Collection

Academic search.

Three servers were consulted: Google Scholar, Web of Science [v.5.34], and Scopus. Different keyword combinations were used, and all relevant papers were downloaded. The keywords used for the search are provided in Table 1 :

This process gave a total of 251 papers. Afterwards, a snowballing process was performed with three reviews: Moraga et al., ( 2019 ), Parchomenko et al., ( 2019 ), and Saidani et al., ( 2019 ), which added 32 more papers to the list.

Non-academic Search

This search considered official reports by national and international institutes and publicly available software to measure circularity. Nine official sources were compiled: Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2013 , 2015 ), European Environment Agency (EEA) (EEA, 2016 ), European Commission (European Comission, 2015 ), Eurostat (Eurostat, n.d.), The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (OECD, 2003 ), the World Resources Forum (World Resources Forum, 2014 ), and the United States Chamber of Commerce (U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, n.d.). Additionally, two online available tools were included: The Circularity Calculator by Ideal&Co, which is part of the ResCoM project (Ideal&Co Explore B.V., n.d.; Ideal&Co Explore B.V, n.d.), funded by the European Union, and the Circular Economy Toolkit with collaboration of Accenture and Cambridge (Evans, 2013 ).

Template Formation and Categorisation

The total search yielded 298 documents, considered the initial universe of this study. In a systematic approach, a first review of papers was performed, where the titles, keywords and abstracts of each paper were read to filter the ones who specifically addressed the subject of measuring circularity and/or provided tools to measure it in some way. After this first filter, 142 papers were left, which were further reviewed in-depth. These were then compiled in a database for further processing (provided in Annex 5). This first—general—review shaped the main categories into which most of the indicators corresponded.

Clustering of Subcategories and Parameters

Each of the 142 papers and reports was read and analysed to understand the specific approach taken to measure circularity. The description of each indicator was added to the database within the category of the subject it aimed to measure (e.g. Recycling, Reuse, Direct Social Impacts, Water, etc.). In an iterative process, the categories were revisited based on the obtained results to form the clusters observed throughout the process. Afterwards, all the indicators for each category were grouped into common themes. These themes formed the subcategories, which, when possible, were further detailed into parameters.

The purpose of dividing categories into subcategories and parameters was double-fold; to provide a clearer picture of what is being measured and to ensure the least overlap possible within categories.

More than 400 indicators were found with different degrees of specificity. They were clustered into one framework with three concentric layers, as shown in Fig.  2 a. The first layer (inner circle of the Figure) corresponds to the CE framework, which differentiates between circular processes and circular impacts. The second layer identifies the different categories within them and the last (outer) layer corresponds to the subcategories or indicators.

Summary of CE framework, a representation of the three layers of the CE framework; b categories and subcategories found in the literature review

Details of each of the concentric layers can be seen in Fig.  2 b and will be further explained throughout the results section of this paper.

Circular Processes and Circular Impacts

The Circular Processes refer to the different ways in which the maximum value of any product, component and material can be kept within a system. These are called value retention stages (VRS), and VRS constitute the building blocks of a circular system.

The Circular Impacts concern the ultimate aim of CE: the sustainable and fair improvement of quality of life for nature and society. These circular impacts can be summarised into three major blocks: contribute to social development, improve environmental performance and ensure a socially fair and market-relevant economic contribution, as also described by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2013 ), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (United Nations Industrial Development Organization, n.d.) and the European Commission (European Commission, 2015a , 2015b ).

The review revealed that there is a widely spread confusion and overlap between circular processes and circular impacts and that a clear differentiation and straightforward understanding of each category can significantly improve the tools and methods through which to assess CE.

Circular Processes

Eight VRS were found: redesign, (re)use, re-sell, remanufacture/ refurbish, recycle, recover and recirculate. They cover the different strategies available to keep value on four levels: (1) the product itself, (2) the components of the product -the pieces of which a product is made, (3) the materials that constitute these components, and (4) the logistics required to circulate such elements. A summary of the VRS and their specific aim within the CE framework is presented in Fig.  3 .

Value retention stages and their aim within the CE

Redesign involves rethinking the current material and product uses and configurations to tackle specific concerns or to achieve a desired attribute. Redesign strategies can be a consequence of improving other of the circular processes or impacts. However, in this category, the focus is on the design principle. Within the current CE landscape, the redesign indicators can be assigned to seven main categories, which are presented in Table 2 .

Redesign is a key element to enable the rest of the value retention stages. Current systems and products need to be redesigned to meet the new (circular) expectations that are placed on them. This places the Redesign stage at the forefront of tools to enable circular transitions.

Reducing aims at increasing production efficiency, but also at reducing dependency on critical and scarce resources, the complexity of products (fewer components, fewer materials) and systems (fewer nodes, fewer intermediaries), and finally impact in terms of environmental pollution. Table 3 provides a summary of indicators to assess the reduction aspect of CE.

Use and Reuse

Considers the use and reuse phases at a product level without changes or disassembly. A match between the actual and desired use time is needed for which several strategies can be used. They are further detailed in Table 4 .

The difference between Reuse and Re-sell lies in the economic transaction and energy involved in the transfer of a product to a second user. Re-selling of a product can happen between consumers or with a company as an intermediate (Table 5 ).

Refurbish/Remanufacture

Refurbishment and remanufacturing occur at the component level. Refurbished products are of satisfactory quality but not necessarily equal to the original performance standards (Ijomah et al., 1999 ), and remanufacturing is a rigorous recovery process that returns products to the same quality level as the new counterpart product (Van Loon & Van Wassenhove, 2018 ) (Table 6 ).

Recycle was the most common VRS found in the literature, this framework differentiates them as follows: recycling of products (described here as reuse and re-sell), recycling of components (refurbish/remanufacture) and the recycling of materials, which is summarised in Table 7 .

After the recycling cycles have come to an end, and no further value can be extracted from the materials in their current form, or when the product composition makes it virtually impossible to recycle, strategies can be used to recover minerals, energy, or scarce elements from them (Table 8 ).

Recirculate

The recirculation of products, components, and materials is as important as their value retention properties. This requires the integrated and coordinated effort of the complete supply chain to physically move them throughout the loops, which enables then the rest of the VRS (Table 9 ).

The work of van Buren et al. regarding logistics (van Buren et al., 2016 ), Zheng and Zhang for green logistics (Zheng & Zhang, 2010 ), and Govindan and Solemani (Govindan & Soleimani, 2017 ; Govindan et al., 2015 ) in reverse logistics are a good starting point to design metrics for Recirculation in the CE.

Efforts in Measuring the Full Circularity of a Product

Additional to the above-mentioned value retention stages, some authors have attempted to use normalised circularity indicators (NCIs) as a means to provide a single score for circularity, by aggregating the results of more than one value retention stage. This approach allows having one unique value instead of a spread of indicators, which can be useful in terms of communication; however, by doing so, the granularity of each parameter gets lost. Three main clusters of NCIs were found, which are further described in Table 10 .

Circular Impacts

Circular Impacts refer to the ultimate goal of CE: the sustainable and fair improvement of quality of life for nature and society. These can be summarised into three major lines: (1) improve environmental performance through regenerative flows that promote cleaner energy, processes, and technologies; (2) positively influence social development, employee and community engagement and advocate for better consumption patterns; and (3) create business models that ensure a socially fair and market-relevant economic contribution. These findings are further described in the next sections and summarised in Fig.  4 .

Contribution of CE towards the Environment, Society and Economy

Environmental Performance

The indicators on environmental performance in the CE can be categorised in general themes and specific concerns. The general themes suggest the broader aim that circular strategies should achieve, while the specific concerns are the particular topics of interest regarding the environmental impact of CE. Both general and specific themes are addressed in Tables 11 and 12 , respectively.

Social Impact

CE holds an intrinsic duty to improve our societies, making them fairer and improving the quality of life of all. The groups of interest that can be influenced by circularity initiatives are grouped into three: (1) employees (impact inside the company), (2) users and consumers (impact through the products and services offered), and (3) communities and other stakeholders (impact outside the company) (Table 13 ).

It is understood that economic-social behaviour is not only a matter of supply and demand, as it is influenced by the market forces (price), government incentives, environmental benefits and social trends and attitudes (Hazen et al., 2017 ). Therefore, sustained and sustainable change in the consumption patterns requires the consumers’ deeper understanding of the economic, social and environmental implications of their choices (Newton et al., 2018 ).

Economic Contribution

The economic benefits of CE have been estimated at a global net economic benefit of €1.8 trillion by 2030 (McKinsey, 2015 ). These can be considered as economic outputs of CE. Two more aspects need to be considered: the resources available (inputs) and the value that is kept in the cycles due to the different retention strategies (process). These three aspects are detailed in Table 14 .

Discussion, Limitations, and Future Work

The assessment of CE needs to provide insight into whether or not we are getting closer to a CE. This means that a fully circular system needs to fully accomplish CE’s definition, which leads to the core of our review: what is being measured when we measure the CE?

The proposed framework makes a distinction between circular processes and circular impacts. In this sense, processes act as a means to achieve a goal, which is reflected in the impacts. This is very much in line with what the CE holds as core principles: to replace end-of-life and keep value for longer through the different value retention stages with the ultimate goal of achieving sustainable development, understood as positive environmental performance, economic contribution, and social impact . However, for this to hold, the following aspects still require substantial improvement:

Refinement of subcategories and parameters

The categorisation process for this framework revealed that even though the main categories of both circular processes and impacts are well established and developed, the subsequent subcategories and parameters do not have the same maturity level. The results presented in this review make a significant contribution to increasing the understanding and availability of such subcategories and parameters. However, there are areas where further development is needed at the parameter level, particularly in tackling how to measure the reuse, re-sell, and recirculation efforts. In addition, as CE advances and gets implemented, new parameters within the proposed categories will become relevant and available, which will enrich the CE practice. Furthermore, essential considerations, such as supply chain flexibility and resilience, are not yet considered at an indicator level, even though it has been shown that value chain flexibility is necessary to build sustainable initiatives and strengthen corporate risk management (Dwivedi et al., 2021 ; Sarker et al., 2021 ; Settembre-Blundo et al., 2021 ).

Possible use of a scoring system or weighting factors for VRS

The eight value retention stages are understood as sequential steps of circularity; closer loops (reduce, reuse, re-sell) are prioritised over longer loops (recycle, recover). In this sense, a system that aims to increase circularity must do so by first enabling the shorter loops and not resorting immediately to longer loops where value is lost. However, this is not applicable for every system; therefore, specific adaptations can be developed for specific systems, where weighing factors could support decision-making.

For CE assessment, considerations on the role of the unit of assessment remain largely unexplored. As is observed in other frameworks, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), the unit of assessment, the functional unit, greatly affects the results of such evaluation, affecting the ease of acceptance by different stakeholders. For circularity assessment, careful consideration of the performance requirements that the product system fulfils (functional unit) and the scope (system boundaries) should be considered for the future development of CE assessment tools.

Better integration of existing methodologies to measure circular impacts

For CE to be successful, it must contribute to sustainable development, in this work referred to as circular impacts. However, at the intersection of circular processes and circular impacts, we found overlap, confusion, and misunderstanding of concepts. The use of already existing methodologies such as LCA, Social-LCA, LCC, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to reflect circular impacts can accelerate the disentangling and understanding, as long as they are updated to reflect and better represent the effect that circular systems may have in sustainable development.

A deeper understanding of the influence and reach of CE in socioeconomic and environmental systems

It is fundamental to ensure that the implementation of circular practices follows ethical principles and safeguards the social, cultural, political, and economic integrity of the society it plans to serve. For this, further alignment between CE and the SDGs is of special interest.

To bridge the gaps presented here, joint efforts of academics, industries, and policy-makers are envisaged to propose appropriate and useful indicators. Our review provides a wide array of indicators categorised and grouped for a better understanding of the overarching framework. Future research should aim at proofing these indicators for different sectors and optimising them so that with the minimum data requirements, the best assessment possible is made for the different impact levels of circularity.

The indicators provide a comprehensive understanding of the tools being used to measure CE (e.g. standardised methods, specific formulas, integrated approaches, and models for quantitative and qualitative assessment). The variety of scopes was addressed by building three layers within this framework; in this way, future research can focus on selecting the adequate assessment level for different purposes. However, future research must also consider the consequences of the different VRS (upper half of the circle) into the Social, Environmental and Economic dimensions of society (lower half of the circle). Without this consideration, Circular Economy runs the risk of increasing overall production and consumption through increased efficiency, which can partially or fully offset their benefits (Zink & Geyer, 2017 ) with the unwanted consequence of a Circular Economy rebound effect.

Alignment between policy, assessment, and practice of the CE

Little literature was found on the assessment of public policies and their impact on the different CE strategies. While policies can greatly influence institutions, the evaluation of such policies in the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels remains unclear. Furthermore, the analysed official documents often present incomplete views on the Circular Economy, strongly emphasising one aspect over the others (e.g. Recycling) or presenting both processes and impacts as synonyms.

As policy navigates in between producers and consumers, it remains an important research gap to understand the role of the ‘Green-Circular Premium’ (Appolloni et al., 2022 ) in which the consumer accepts a higher price for the use of circular strategies in the manufacturing of products. Furthermore, a policy is needed to ensure that this premium trickles down to various social actors and that new, innovative, circular business models are fostered to enable this transformation.

In terms of the application of this framework, the presented results provide insight and research pathways for academics and researchers working on the operationalisation of CE. The results also highlight the multidisciplinary nature that is required to better understand, implement and assess circularity efforts. The developed framework lays out what is available in terms of circularity assessment. The categories and subcategories can guide educators, researchers, policy-makers, managers, sustainability practitioners, and other relevant stakeholders into the different areas that must be considered for a successful transition to a CE. Additionally, the parameters presented provide insight into different ways to measure specific aspects of circularity, which can serve either directly as an indicator, or as a benchmark for the development of indicators for particular sectors.

Conclusions

We performed a detailed analysis of 298 documents to understand how to measure the different aspects of the Circular Economy (CE). Our analysis shows that there is a widely spread confusion and overlap between indicators referring to circular processes and circular impacts. We distinguished the strategies to retain value (referred to as Circular Processes) and the social, environmental and economic consequences that this implies (referred to as Circular Impacts), as well as their respective subcategories and parameters. The clear differentiation and straightforward understanding of each category proposed can significantly improve the tools and methods to assess the CE.

The proposed CE framework makes use of the Value Retention Stages (VRS) as a way to organise 27 circular process indicators. There are eight processes found through the clustering of indicators, which act as a chain: Redesign products and systems; Reduce impact, dependency, complexity and quantity of materials and products; Use and Reuse products for longer and re-sell them taking advantage of new, innovative markets. Once a product is obsolete, Refurbish and Remanufacture can help to keep value at the component level and to prevent early disposal. When further cycling of products and components is no longer possible, Recycling gives further use to materials that can be converted into raw elements of other or similar processes. When materials cannot be used on further cycles, then Recovery processes aim to keep nutrients, rare elements and energy from otherwise waste as a last attempt to keep value. The final element is the Recirculation within these stages, which takes care of the material and information flow within a circular network.

Complementing the VRS, the Circular Impacts aim to measure the goals of CE concerning environmental performance, economic contribution, and social impact. The environmental performance of circularity efforts emphasises the creation of regenerative flows and can make use of methodologies such as LCA for quantification. It pays particular attention to areas such as water and wastewater, waste production and waste recovery, toxicity, land use, energy use and efficiency, and air pollution and GHGs. The economic contribution of CE is relevant at three levels: the inputs required to make a circularity transition, including technological and human inputs, the processes to add and maintain -economic- value in a circular system, and the outputs obtained, such as economic growth and profitability. Finally, the social impact of these VRS permeates on three segments, within the company (employees), with the companies’ consumers, and in the communities and other stakeholders where the company has presence or influence, such as the supply chain.

Overall, the goal of our framework is to provide a basis for CE assessment and to give specifics on the approach and methods to use for it. Nevertheless, the specific models and indicators may change among industries and for different technology readiness levels. This framework increases the overall understanding of circularity indicators and is a useful guide for researchers, industries, and policy-makers to test circularity metrics in study cases more systematically and comprehensively while also providing the basis for further structure and development of CE indicators.

Key Questions

How can a Circular Economy framework support the decision making in organizations and systems?

How can these indicators support the design, policy, education and research across disciplines?

What are the social, environmental and economic consequences of implementing different circular strategies?

Akanbi, L. A., Oyedele, L. O., Akinade, O. O., Ajayi, A. O., Davila Delgado, M., Bilal, M., & Bello, S. A. (2018). Salvaging building materials in a circular economy: A BIM-based whole-life performance estimator. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 129 , 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2017.10.026

Article   Google Scholar  

Amui, L. B. L., Jabbour, C. J. C., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., & Kannan, D. (2017). Sustainability as a dynamic organizational capability: A systematic review and a future agenda toward a sustainable transition. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142 , 308–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.103

Appolloni, A., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., D’Adamo, I., Gastaldi, M., & Settembre-Blundo, D. (2022). Green recovery in the mature manufacturing industry: The role of the green-circular premium and sustainability certification in innovative efforts. Ecological Economics, 193 , 107311. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2021.107311

Azevedo, S., Godina, R., & Matias, J. (2017). Proposal of a sustainable circular index for manufacturing companies. Resources, 6 (4), 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6040063

Bocken, N. M. P., De Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & van der Grinten, B. (2016). Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33 (5), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124

Camacho-Otero, J., Boks, C., Pettersen, I., Camacho-Otero, J., Boks, C., & Pettersen, I. N. (2018). Consumption in the circular economy: A literature review. Sustainability, 10 (8), 2758. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082758

Căutişanu, C., Asandului, L., Borza, M., & Turturean, C. (2018). Quantitative approach to circular economy in the OECD countries. Amfiteatru Economic., 20 (48), 263. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2018/48/262

Cayzer, S., Griffiths, P., & Beghetto, V. (2017). Design of indicators for measuring product performance in the circular economy. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 10 (4–5), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2017.1333543

Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Sarkis, J., de Sousa, L., Jabbour, A. B., Scott Renwick, D. W., Singh, S. K., Grebinevych, O., Kruglianskas, I., & Filho, M. G. (2019). Who is in charge? A review and a research agenda on the ‘human side’ of the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 222 , 793–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.03.038

Chun-rong, J., & Jun, Z. (2011). Evaluation of regional circular economy based on matter element analysis. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 11 , 637–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2011.12.099

Cong, L., Zhao, F., & Sutherland, J. W. (2017). Value recovery from end-of-use products facilitated by automated dismantling planning. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1370-9

Cooper, S. J. G., Giesekam, J., Hammond, G. P., Norman, J. B., Owen, A., Rogers, J. G., & Scott, K. (2017). Thermodynamic insights and assessment of the ‘circular economy.’ Journal of Cleaner Production, 162 , 1356–1367. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.06.169

Cullen, J. M. (2017). Circular economy: Theoretical benchmark or perpetual motion machine? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21 (3), 483–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12599

Curtis, S. K. K., Lehner, M., Curtis, S. K. K., & Lehner, M. (2019). Defining the sharing economy for sustainability. Sustainability, 11 (3), 567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030567

Dahmus, J. B., & Gutowski, T. G. (2007). What gets recycled: An information theory based model for product recycling. Environmental Science & Technology, 41 , 7543–7550. https://doi.org/10.1021/es062254b

de Jesus, A., Antunes, P., Santos, R., & Mendonça, S. (2018). Eco-innovation in the transition to a circular economy: An analytical literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172 , 2999–3018. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.11.111

Di Maio, F., & Rem, P. C. (2015). A robust indicator for promoting circular economy through recy-cling. Journal of Environmental Protection Citation, 6 (6), 1095–1104. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2015.610096

Di Maio, F., Rem, P. C., Baldé, K., & Polder, M. (2017). Measuring resource efficiency and circular economy: A market value approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 122 , 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2017.02.009

Dwivedi, A., Agrawal, D., Jha, A., Gastaldi, M., Paul, S. K., & D’Adamo, I. (2021). Addressing the challenges to sustainable initiatives in value chain flexibility: Implications for sustainable development goals. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management , 22 (Suppl 2), S179–S197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-021-00288-4 .

EEA. (2016). Circular economy in Europe. Developing the knowledge base. In European Environment agency (Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.2800/51444

Ehrenfeld, J. R. (1997). The importance of LCAs: Warts and all. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 1 (2), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.1997.1.2.41

Elia, V., Gnoni, M. G., & Tornese, F. (2017). Measuring circular economy strategies through index methods: A critical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142 , 2741–2751. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.10.196

Ellen Macarthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the Circular Economy. Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition . https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Ellen-MacArthur-Foundation-Towards-the-Circular-Economy-vol.1.pdf

Ellen Macarthur Foundation. (2015). Circularity indicators: An approach to measuring circularity . http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circularity-indicators/

Eneng, R., Lulofs, K., & Asdak, C. (2018). Towards a water balanced utilization through circular economy. Management Research Review, 41 (5), 572–585. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-02-2018-0080

Eriksen, M. K., Damgaard, A., Boldrin, A., & Astrup, T. F. (2019). Quality assessment and circularity potential of recovery systems for household plastic waste. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23 (1), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12822

European Comission. (2015). ANNEX: Closing the loop: An EU action plan for the Circular Economy . https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8a8ef5e8-99a0-11e5-b3b7-01aa75ed71a1.0012.02/DOC_2&format=PDF

European Commission. (2015a). Circular economy | Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs . https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/sustainability/circular-economy_en

European Commission. (2015b). Circular Economy Action Plan. For a Cleaner and more competitive Europe . https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en

Eurostat. (n.d.). Circular Economy Monitoring Framework . Retrieved August 9, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/circular-economy/indicators

Evans, J. (2013). Circular Economy Toolkit. In http://circulareconomytoolkit.org/about.html . http://circulareconomytoolkit.org/about.html

Figge, F., Thorpe, A. S., Givry, P., Canning, L., & Franklin-Johnson, E. (2018). Longevity and circularity as indicators of eco-efficient resource use in the circular economy. Ecological Economics, 150 (April), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.030

Fogarassy, C., Kovács, A., Horváth, B., & Borocz, M. (2017). The development of a circular evaluation (cev) tool: Case study for the 2024 Budapest Olympics. Hungarian Agricultural Engineering, 31 , 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1767/6hae.2017.31.10

Franklin-Johnson, E., Figge, F., & Canning, L. (2016). Resource duration as a managerial indicator for Circular Economy performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 133 , 589–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.023

García-Barragán, J. F., Eyckmans, J., & Rousseau, S. (2019). Defining and measuring the circular economy: A mathematical approach. Ecological Economics, 157 , 369–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2018.12.003

Geng, Y., Fu, J., Sarkis, J., & Xue, B. (2012). Towards a national circular economy indicator system in China: An evaluation and critical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 23 (1), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2011.07.005

Golinska, P., Kosacka, M., Mierzwiak, R., & Werner-Lewandowska, K. (2015). Grey Decision Making as a tool for the classification of the sustainability level of remanufacturing companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 105 , 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.040

Govindan, K., & Soleimani, H. (2017). A review of reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chains: a Journal of Cleaner Production focus. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142 , 371–384.

Govindan, K., Soleimani, H., & Kannan, D. (2015). Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain: A comprehensive review to explore the future. European Journal of Operational Research, 240 (3), 603–626.

Graedel, T. E., Allwood, J., Birat, J. P., Buchert, M., Hagelüken, C., Reck, B. K., Sibley, S. F., & Sonnemann, G. (2011). What do we know about metal recycling rates? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 15 (3), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00342.x

Guo-gang, J. (2011). Empirical analysis of regional circular economy development-study based on Jiangsu, Heilongjiang, Qinghai province. Energy Procedia, 5 , 125–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2011.03.023

Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., & Heinz, M. (2015). How circular is the global economy? An assessment of material flows, waste production, and recycling in the European Union and the world in 2005. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19 (5), 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12244

Hatcher, G. D., Ijomah, W. L., & Windmill, J. F. C. (2011). Design for remanufacture: A literature review and future research needs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19 (17–18), 2004–2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2011.06.019

Hatcher, G. D., Ijomah, W. L., & Windmill, J. F. C. (2013). Integrating design for remanufacture into the design process: The operational factors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39 , 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2012.08.015

Haupt, M., Vadenbo, C., & Hellweg, S. (2017). Do we have the right performance indicators for the circular economy?: Insight into the swiss waste management system. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21 (3), 615–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12506

Hazen, B. T., Mollenkopf, D. A., & Wang, Y. (2017). Remanufacturing for the circular economy: An examination of consumer switching behavior. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26 (4), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1929

Howard, M., Hopkinson, P., & Miemczyk, J. (2018). The regenerative supply chain: A framework for developing circular economy indicators. International Journal of Production Research . https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1524166

Huysman, S., De Schaepmeester, J., Ragaert, K., Dewulf, J., & De Meester, S. (2017). Performance indicators for a circular economy: A case study on post-industrial plastic waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 120 , 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2017.01.013

Iacovidou, E., Velis, C. A., Purnell, P., Zwirner, O., Brown, A., Hahladakis, J., Millward-Hopkins, J., & Williams, P. T. (2017). Metrics for optimising the multi-dimensional value of resources recovered from waste in a circular economy: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166 , 910–938. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.07.100

Ideal&Co Explore B.V. (n.d.). The ResCoM platform and tools: Circular Pathfinder . Retrieved August 9, 2019, from https://www.rescoms.eu/platform-and-tools

Ideal&Co Explore B.V. (n.d.). Circularity Calculator-Description . Retrieved August 9, 2019, from http://rescomd58.share-a-space.com/Share-A-space/Content/Images/Rescom/instructions/BikeCC.pdf

Ijomah, W. L., Bennett, J. P., & Pearce, J. (1999). Remanufacturing: Evidence of environmentally conscious business practice in the UK. Proceedings First International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing . https://doi.org/10.1109/ECODIM.1999.747607

Ijomah, W. L., McMahon, C. A., Hammond, G. P., & Newman, S. T. (2007). Development of robust design-for-remanufacturing guidelines to further the aims of sustainable development. International Journal of Production Research, 45 (18–19), 4513–4536. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540701450138

Jain, S., Jain, N. K., & Metri, B. (2018). Strategic framework towards measuring a circular supply chain management. Benchmarking: an International Journal , 25 (8), 3238–3252. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-2017-0304 .

Jawahir, I. S., & Bradley, R. (2016). Technological elements of circular economy and the principles of 6R-based closed-loop material flow in sustainable manufacturing. Procedia CIRP, 40 , 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCIR.2016.01.067

Jones, P. T., Geysen, D., Tielemans, Y., Van Passel, S., Pontikes, Y., Blanpain, B., Quaghebeur, M., & Hoekstra, N. (2013). Enhanced Landfill Mining in view of multiple resource recovery: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 55 , 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2012.05.021

Kalmykova, Y., Sadagopan, M., & Rosado, L. (2018). Circular economy: From review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135 , 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2017.10.034

Kasulaitis, B. V., Babbitt, C. W., & Krock, A. K. (2019). Dematerialization and the circular economy: Comparing strategies to reduce material impacts of the consumer electronic product ecosystem. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23 (1), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12756

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127 , 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005

Krystofik, M., Bustamante, M., & Badami, K. (2018). Circular economy strategies for mitigating critical material supply issues. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135 , 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2017.08.002

Laner, D., Zoboli, O., & Rechberger, H. (2017). Statistical entropy analysis to evaluate resource efficiency: Phosphorus use in Austria. Ecological Indicators, 83 , 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2017.07.060

Laso, J., García-Herrero, I., Margallo, M., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Fullana, P., Bala, A., Gazulla, C., Irabien, Á., & Aldaco, R. (2018). Finding an economic and environmental balance in value chains based on circular economy thinking: An eco-efficiency methodology applied to the fish canning industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 133 , 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2018.02.004

Lèbre, É., Corder, G., & Golev, A. (2017). The role of the mining industry in a circular economy: A framework for resource management at the mine site level. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21 (3), 662–672. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12596

Leslie, H. A., Leonards, P. E. G., Brandsma, S. H., de Boer, J., & Jonkers, N. (2016). Propelling plastics into the circular economy: Weeding out the toxics first. Environment International, 94 , 230–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVINT.2016.05.012

Liang, W. Z., Zhao, G. Y., & Hong, C. S. (2018). Performance assessment of circular economy for phosphorus chemical firms based on VIKOR-QUALIFLEX method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196 , 1365–1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.147

Lieder, M., Asif, F. M. A., & Rashid, A. (2017). Towards Circular Economy implementation: An agent-based simulation approach for business model changes. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 31 (6), 1377–1402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-017-9365-9

Lieder, M., & Rashid, A. (2016). Towards circular economy implementation: A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 115 , 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042

Linder, M., Sarasini, S., & van Loon, P. (2017). A metric for quantifying product-level circularity. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21 (3), 545–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12552

Littel, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (N. Y. O. U. Press (ed.)). Oxford University Press. https://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=UpsRDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&ots=Vg_Z7fkvk7&sig=FYlo__Tw3ChUfvO_ZtO1HTi2f0E&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Lüdeke-Freund, F., Gold, S., & Bocken, N. M. P. (2019). A review and typology of circular economy business model patterns. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23 (1), 36–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12763

Ma, S., Wen, Z., Chen, J., & Wen, Z. (2014). Mode of circular economy in China’s iron and steel industry: A case study in Wu’an city. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64 , 505–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.008

Magnier, C. (2017). 10 Key Indicators for Monitoring the Circular Economy . https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2018-10/datalab-18-economie-circulaire-Edition-2017-anglais.pdf

Marić, J., & Opazo-Basáez, M. (2019). Green servitization for flexible and sustainable supply chain operations: A review of reverse logistics services in manufacturing. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management , 20 (1), 65–80.

Mayer, A., Haas, W., Wiedenhofer, D., Krausmann, F., Nuss, P., & Blengini, G. A. (2019). Measuring progress towards a circular economy: A monitoring framework for economy-wide material loop closing in the EU28. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23 (1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12809

McKinsey. (2015). Europe’s circular-economy opportunity | McKinsey . https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/europes-circular-economy-opportunity#

Mendoza, J. M. F., Sharmina, M., Gallego-Schmid, A., Heyes, G., & Azapagic, A. (2017). Integrating backcasting and eco-design for the circular economy: The BECE framework. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21 (3), 526–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12590

Merli, R., Preziosi, M., & Acampora, A. (2018). How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 178 , 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112

Mesa, J., Esparragoza, I., & Maury, H. (2018). Developing a set of sustainability indicators for product families based on the circular economy model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196 , 1429–1442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.131

Molina-Moreno, V., Leyva-Díaz, J., Llorens-Montes, F., & Cortés-García, F. (2017). Design of indicators of circular economy as instruments for the evaluation of sustainability and efficiency in wastewater from pig farming industry. Water, 9 (9), 653. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9090653

Moraga, G., Huysveld, S., Mathieux, F., Blengini, G. A., Alaerts, L., Van Acker, K., de Meester, S., & Dewulf, J. (2019). Circular economy indicators: What do they measure? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146 , 452–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2019.03.045

Newton, E. J., Chaer, I., Proudman, P., Andrews, D., & Muranko, Z. (2018). The Pro-Circular Change Model (P-CCM): Proposing a framework facilitating behavioural change towards a Circular Economy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135 , 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.12.017

Niero, M., & Kalbar, P. P. (2019). Coupling material circularity indicators and life cycle based indicators: A proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at the product level. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 140 , 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.002

OECD. (2003). OECD Environmental Indicators: Development, Measurement and Use . http://www.oecd.org/env/

Pagotto, M., & Halog, A. (2016). Towards a circular economy in australian agri-food industry: An application of input-output oriented approaches for analyzing resource efficiency and competitiveness potential. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20 (5), 1176–1186. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12373

Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Parchomenko, A., Nelen, D., Gillabel, J., & Rechberger, H. (2019). Measuring the circular economy: A Multiple Correspondence Analysis of 63 metrics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210 , 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.357

Park, J. Y., & Chertow, M. R. (2014). Establishing and testing the “reuse potential” indicator for managing wastes as resources. Journal of Environmental Management, 137 , 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2013.11.053

Pauliuk, S. (2018). Critical appraisal of the circular economy standard BS 8001:2017 and a dashboard of quantitative system indicators for its implementation in organizations. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 129 , 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.019

Portillo-Tarragona, P., Scarpellini, S., Moneva, J., Valero-Gil, J., & Aranda-Usón, A. (2018). Classification and measurement of the firms’ resources and capabilities applied to eco-innovation projects from a resource-based view perspective. Sustainability, 10 (9), 3161. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093161

Potting, J., & Hanemaaijer, A. (2018). Circular economy: what we want to know and can measure Framework and baseline assessment for monitoring the progress of the circular economy in the Netherlands Policy Report . https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2018-circular-economy-what-we-want-to-know-and-can-measure-3217.pdf

Prieto-Sandoval, V., Jaca, C., & Ormazabal, M. (2018). Towards a consensus on the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179 , 605–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.224

Qing, Y., Qiongqiong, G., & Mingyue, C. (2011). Study and integrative evaluation on the development of circular economy of Shaanxi province. Energy Procedia, 5 , 1568–1578. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2011.03.268

Reh, L. (2013). Process engineering in circular economy. Particuology, 11 (2), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PARTIC.2012.11.001

Richa, K., Babbitt, C. W., & Gaustad, G. (2017). Eco-efficiency analysis of a lithium-ion battery waste hierarchy inspired by circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21 (3), 715–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12607

Rönnlund, I., Reuter, M., Horn, S., Aho, J., Aho, M., Päällysaho, M., Ylimäki, L., & Pursula, T. (2016). Eco-efficiency indicator framework implemented in the metallurgical industry: Part 1—a comprehensive view and benchmark. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21 (10), 1473–1500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1122-9

Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., & Cluzel, F. (2017a). Hybrid top-down and bottom-up framework to measure products’ circularity performance. International Conference on Engineering Design , 17 . https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01571581

Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., Cluzel, F., & Kendall, A. (2019). A taxonomy of circular economy indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207 , 542–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.10.014

Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., Cluzel, F., Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., & Cluzel, F. (2017b). How to assess product performance in the circular economy? Proposed requirements for the design of a circularity measurement framework. Recycling, 2 (1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling2010006

Sarker, M., Moktadir, M., & Santibanez-Gonzalez, E. D. (2021). Social sustainability challenges towards flexible supply chain management: Post-COVID-19 perspective. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management , 22 (Suppl 2), S199–S218.

Scheepens, A. E., Vogtländer, J. G., & Brezet, J. C. (2016). Two life cycle assessment (LCA) based methods to analyse and design complex (regional) circular economy systems. Case: Making water tourism more sustainable. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114 , 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.05.075

Schiller, G., Gruhler, K., & Ortlepp, R. (2017). Continuous material flow analysis approach for bulk nonmetallic mineral building materials applied to the German building sector. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21 (3), 673–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12595

Schroeder, P., Anggraeni, K., & Weber, U. (2019). The relevance of circular economy practices to the sustainable development goals. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23 (1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12732

Settembre-Blundo, D., González-Sánchez, R., Medina-Salgado, S., & García-Muiña, F. E. (2021). Flexibility and resilience in corporate decision making: A new sustainability-based risk management system in uncertain times. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management , 22 (Suppl 2), S107–S132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-021-00277-7 .

Singh, J., & Ordoñez, I. (2016). Resource recovery from post-consumer waste: Important lessons for the upcoming circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134 , 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.12.020

Singh, S. K., & Singh, A. P. (2019). Interplay of organizational justice, psychological empowerment, organizational citizenship behavior, and job satisfaction in the context of circular economy. Management Decision, 57 (4), 937–952. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2018-0966

Smol, M., Kulczycka, J., & Avdiushchenko, A. (2017). Circular economy indicators in relation to eco-innovation in European regions. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 19 (3), 669–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1323-8

Spring, M., & Araujo, L. (2017). Product biographies in servitization and the circular economy. Industrial Marketing Management, 60 , 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2016.07.001

Steinmann, Z. J. N. J. N., Huijbregts, M. A. J. A. J., & Reijnders, L. (2019). How to define the quality of materials in a circular economy? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141 , 362–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2018.10.040

Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., & Yu, X. (2013). A review of the circular economy in China: Moving from rhetoric to implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 42 , 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2012.11.020

Sundin, E. (2004). Product and process design for successful remanufacturing . Production Systems, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Linköpings Universitet.

Sushil. (1990). Waste management: A systems perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems , 90 (5), 2–67.

Talwar, S. (2017). Circular Economy indicators for India: a scientific macro assessment of 5 circular economic measures, and their comparative performance to global industrial hubs . http://programme.exordo.com/isie2017/delegates/presentation/66/

Tecchio, P., McAlister, C., Mathieux, F., & Ardente, F. (2017). In search of standards to support circularity in product policies: A systematic approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168 , 1533–1546. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.05.198

Teixeira, A. A., Jabbour, C. J. C., De Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Latan, H., & De Oliveira, J. H. C. (2016). Green training and green supply chain management: Evidence from Brazilian firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 116 , 170–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.061

Thierry, M., Salomon, M., Van Nunen, J., & Van Wassenhove, L. (1995). Strategic issues in product recovery management. California Management Review, 37 (2), 114–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165792

Tomić, T., & Schneider, D. R. (2018). The role of energy from waste in circular economy and closing the loop concept: Energy analysis approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 98 , 268–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2018.09.029

Türkeli, S., Kemp, R., Huang, B., Bleischwitz, R., & McDowall, W. (2018). Circular economy scientific knowledge in the European Union and China: A bibliometric, network and survey analysis (2006–2016). Journal of Cleaner Production, 197 , 1244–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.06.118

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. (n.d.). Measuring Circular Economy . Retrieved August 9, 2019, from https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/circular-economy-toolbox/about-circularity/measuring-circular-economy

United Nations Industrial Development Organization. (n.d.). Circular economy | UNIDO . Retrieved January 10, 2020, from https://www.unido.org/our-focus-cross-cutting-services/circular-economy

van Buren, N., Demmers, M., van der Heijden, R., & Witlox, F. (2016). Towards a circular economy: The role of Dutch logistics industries and governments. Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070647

Van Loon, P., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2018). Assessing the economic and environmental impact of remanufacturing: A decision support tool for OEM suppliers Assessing the economic and environmental impact of remanufacturing: A decision support tool for OEM suppliers. International Journal of Production Research, 56 (4), 1662–1674. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1367107

van Weelden, E., Mugge, R., & Bakker, C. (2016). Paving the way towards circular consumption: Exploring consumer acceptance of refurbished mobile phones in the Dutch market. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113 , 743–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.11.065

Vanegas, P., Peeters, J. R., Cattrysse, D., Tecchio, P., Ardente, F., Mathieux, F., Dewulf, W., & Duflou, J. R. (2018). Ease of disassembly of products to support circular economy strategies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135 , 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2017.06.022

Veleva, V., Bodkin, G., & Todorova, S. (2017). The need for better measurement and employee engagement to advance a circular economy: Lessons from Biogen’s “zero waste” journey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 154 , 517–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.03.177

Verberne, J. J. H. (2016). Building circularity indicators an approach for measuring circularity of a building . https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/46934924/846733-1.pdf

Von Schirnding, Y. (2002). Health in sustainable development planning: the role of indicators. In World Health Organization. Dept. of Health in Sustainable Development . http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/67391

Walker, S., Coleman, N., Hodgson, P., Collins, N., Brimacombe, L., Walker, S., Coleman, N., Hodgson, P., Collins, N., & Brimacombe, L. (2018). Evaluating the environmental dimension of material efficiency strategies relating to the circular economy. Sustainability, 10 (3), 666. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030666

Wastling, T., Charnley, F., Moreno, M., Wastling, T., Charnley, F., & Moreno, M. (2018). Design for circular behaviour: Considering users in a circular economy. Sustainability, 10 (6), 1743. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061743

World Resources Forum. (2014). Circular Economy Improving the Management of Natural Resources . http://www.wrforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/a-_CircularEconomy_English.pdf

Yamada, H., Daigo, I., Matsuno, Y., Adachi, Y., & Kondo, Y. (2006). Application of Markov Chain model to calculate the average number of times of use of a material in society. International Journal of LCA, 11 (5), 354–360. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.05.246.2

Zheng, L., & Zhang, J. (2010). Research on green logistics system based on circular economy. Asian Social Science, 6 (11), 116–119. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v6n11p116

Zhou, Z., Chen, X., & Xiao, X. (2013). On evaluation model of circular economy for iron and steel enterprise based on support vector machines with heuristic algorithm for tuning hyper-parameters. Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences, 7 (6), 2215–2223. https://doi.org/10.12785/amis/070611

Zink, T., & Geyer, R. (2017). Circular economy rebound. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21 (3), 593–602.

Zink, T., Geyer, R., & Startz, R. (2016). A market-based framework for quantifying displaced production from recycling or reuse. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20 (4), 719–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12317

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the reviewers for improving the content of this paper through their suggestions.

The University Fund Limburg (SWOL) with a donation from Aramco and the Dutch Province of Limburg supported this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Science and Engineering, Aachen Maastricht Institute for Biobased Materials, Maastricht University, Brightlands Chemelot Campus, Urmonderbaan 22, 6167 RD, Geleen, The Netherlands

Cris Garcia-Saravia Ortiz-de-Montellano & Yvonne van der Meer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yvonne van der Meer .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 144 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Garcia-Saravia Ortiz-de-Montellano, C., van der Meer, Y. A Theoretical Framework for Circular Processes and Circular Impacts Through a Comprehensive Review of Indicators. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 23 , 291–314 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-022-00300-5

Download citation

Received : 30 December 2020

Accepted : 07 February 2022

Published : 24 March 2022

Issue Date : June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-022-00300-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Circular economy
• Circularity framework
• Circularity indicators
• Sustainability impact
• Sustainable development
• Value retention
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, circular economy indicators and levels of innovation: an innovative systematic literature review.

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management

ISSN : 1741-0401

Article publication date: 11 August 2021

Issue publication date: 15 February 2022

This article aims to analyze the specific indicators of the circular economy (CE) in terms of analytical aspects, scope and breadth of metrics and levels of innovation associated with CE.

Design/methodology/approach

A literature review was developed with a sample of 125 articles, extracted from Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Emerald, Google Scholar, Online Library, Sage, Springer, Taylor and Francis and JSTOR databases.

The results indicate the lack of integration of the social dimension and predominance of environmental indicators, lack of indicators for the meso level and concentration of metrics for the product level. Methodological criteria of validity and reliability for measurement studies are recommended, as well as paths and proposals for future research in the CE.

Research limitations/implications

The study’s limitations are linked to the content and method aspects. Although the search was performed in several databases, with a significant number of articles returned compared to other reviews of the topic, the possibilities are limited by the data source and the impossibility of a broader review. The theme is not yet consolidated and this affects the linearity of the revised results. As for the method, the analysis and coding in systematic reviews involve the authors’ capacity for exploration and cognition.

Practical implications

The article proposes six theoretical propositions and the theoretical framework that portrays the main findings of the study and questions to drive future research in the topic.

Social implications

The article points out opportunities for companies, universities and the government regarding the possibilities that can be explored to develop knowledge and practice about the field.

Originality/value

This research advances the CE literature by means of providing a review of the indicators, metrics and tools oriented toward the CE literature that contributes to the improvement and consolidation of the various researches in the field.

• Circular economy
• Assessment tools

Kuzma, E.L. , Sehnem, S. , Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B. and Campos, L.M.S. (2022), "Circular economy indicators and levels of innovation: an innovative systematic literature review", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management , Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 952-980. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2020-0549

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Select your language

European circular economy stakeholder platform, a joint initiative by the european commission and the european economic and social committee, main navigation, circular metrics for business.

Circle Economy  regularly reviews circular frameworks to help businesses identify the metrics that work best for them . The CIRCelligence indicators framework , designed by BCG and introduced in the paper  Circular Metrics for Business - Introduction to the CIRCelligence indicators framework , helps businesses assess the circularity of their entire value chain, from input to end of life.

The paper provides a holistic assessment of resources flowing into the business (inflow), resource use (slow flow) and the type and amount of resources flowing out of the company (outflow). Through a qualitative assessment, it also takes into account whether the business model is adapted to circular thinking.

CIRCelligence is designed for the high-level management, CSR experts and executives of a business . It requires more input than most other circular economy metrics and so provides a more thorough and detailed overview of an organisation’s circular performance. Results can also be used to report on progress. 

Search the database