Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—A review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics
Open accessAbstract
The circular economy (CE) is perceived as a sustainable economic system where the economic growth is decoupled from the resources use, through the reduction and recirculation of natural resources. In the shift towards the CE, quantifying the circularity of products and services (or their contribution to the CE) is crucial in designing policies and business strategies, and prioritizing sustainable solutions based on evidence. New circularity metrics are being developed for that purpose, but they often present contradiction in both form and content, which contributes to confusion and misunderstanding of the CE concept. This review aims to map methodological developments regarding circularity metrics for products and services, in order to: (1) identify the foundations of circularity metrics used so far and their applications, (2) evaluate the validity of current circularity metrics, based on predefined requirements and a CE definition anchored in the sustainability concept, and (3) provide recommendations on how to measure circularity. The literature search provided a wide variety of CE metrics being developed and applied (seven measurement indices, nine assessment indicators and three assessment frameworks). However, none of them are addressing the CE concept in full, potentially leading to undesirable burden shifting from reduced material consumption to increased environmental, economic or social impacts. Additionally, new metrics under-represent the complexities of multiple cycles and the consequences of material downcycling. Circularity metrics intended to sustainable decision making should be comprehensive enough to avoid burden shifting, and clearly indicate how the benefits of recycling are allocated between the primary and secondary products.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is a need for integrated assessment frameworks combining environmental, economic and potentially social dimensions, supported by robust, standardised metrics.
“Consequently, there is an urgent need for integrated assessment frameworks combining environmental, economic and potentially social dimensions, supported by robust, standardised metrics (Corona et al. 2019;Centobelli et al. 2020;van Loon et al. 2021;Jerome et al. 2022).”
From Integrating Life Cycle Assessment, Monetised Externalities and Value Alignment for Strategic Reconfiguration of Circular Business Models: The Case of Smartphones (2026) · cites this paper as Corona et al. 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 · Cited by 8,550 · see citing works
Self-citationGhisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007 · Cited by 6,536 · see citing works
The Environmental Impacts of Reuse: A Review
Cooper, D. R., & Gutowski, T. G. (2017) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.12388 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Daddi, T., Nucci, B., & Iraldo, F. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.090 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Brunner, P.H., Rechberger, H., 2016. Handbook of Material Flow Analysis: For Environmental, Resource, and Waste Engineers. CRC Press.
- Goedkoop, M., Oele, M., de Schryver, A., Vieira, M., Hegger, S., 2008. SimaPro Database Manual Methods Library. PRé Consultants, The Netherlands, pp. 22-25.
- Hunkeler, D., Lichtenvort, K., Rebitzer, G., 2008. Environmental Life Cycle Costing. CRC Press.
- Iacovidou, E., Velis, C.A., Purnell, P., Zwirner, O., Brown, A., Hahladakis, J., et al., 2017a. Metrics for optimising the multi-dimensional value of resources recovered from waste in a circular economy: a critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 910-938.
- Laurent, A., Bakas, I., Clavreul, J., Bernstad, A., Niero, M., Gentil, E., et al., 2014. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems-part I: lessons learned and per- spectives. Waste Manage. 34, 573-588.
- Nakamura, S., Kondo, Y., 2009. Waste input-output analysis, LCA and LCC. Anonymous Handbook of Input-Output Economics in Industrial Ecology. Springer, pp. 561-572.
- Schrijvers, D.L., Loubet, P., Sonnemann, G., 2016. Critical review of guidelines against a systematic framework with regard to consistency on allocation procedures for re- cycling in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 994-1008.
- UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, 2009. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. United Nations Environment Programme. ISBN, pp. 978-992.
- Villanueva, A., Wenzel, H., 2007. Paper waste-recycling, incineration or landfilling? A review of existing life cycle assessments. Waste Manage. 27, S29-46.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Design principles for intrinsically circular polymers with tunable properties
Shi, C., Reilly, L. T., Phani Kumar, V. S., Coile, M. W., Nicholson, S. R., Broadbelt, L. J., Beckham, G. T., & Chen, E. Y.-X. (2021) · Chem · doi:10.1016/j.chempr.2021.10.004 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Life cycle assessment and circularity indicators
Rigamonti, L., & Mancini, E. (2021) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/s11367-021-01966-2 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Islam, N. F., Gogoi, B., Saikia, R., Yousaf, B., Narayan, M., & Sarma, H. (2024) · Regional Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2024.100174 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Piccardo, C., & Hughes, M. (2022) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133083 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Synergies and gaps between circularity assessment and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Samani, P. (2023) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166611 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Circular Economy: A Review of Review Articles
Hossain, M., Park, S., Suchek, N., & Pansera, M. (2024) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.3867 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Vural Gursel, I., Elbersen, B., & Meesters, K. P. H. (2023) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107104 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Corona, B., Hoefnagels, R., Vural Gürsel, I., Moretti, C., van Veen, M., & Junginger, M. (2022) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134829 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Self-citationJacob-Lopes, E., Santos, A. B., Severo, I. A., Deprá, M. C., Maroneze, M. M., & Zepka, L. Q. (2020) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105756 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Rittershaus, P., Aryan, V., Sánchez, D., Renner, M., & Poeppelbuss, J. (2026) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.70271 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Corona, B., Shen, L., Reike, D., Rosales Carreón, J., & Worrell, E.
- Affiliations
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Corona, Blanca
- Venue
- Resources, Conservation and Recycling
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-12
- Volume
- 151
- Pages
- 104498
- ISSN
- 0921-3449 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2976172025
- Cited by
- 987
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 138 · 2025: 191 · 2024: 182 · 2023: 162 · 2022: 160 · 2021: 105 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 120.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Resources Conservation and Recycling (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
- ETH Zürich Research Collection
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Design and Development
- Keywords
- circular economy, circularity metrics, circularity measurement, sustainable development, burden shifting, recycling, evaluation metrics, measurement indices, evaluation framework
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review