Cited by 987Sustainable Supply Chain ManagementEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilitySustainable Design and Development

Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—A review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics

Open access
Corona, Blanca, Shen, Li, Reike, Denise, Rosales Carreón, Jesús, Worrell, Ernst·2019·Resources, Conservation and Recycling

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Brunner, P.H., Rechberger, H., 2016. Handbook of Material Flow Analysis: For Environmental, Resource, and Waste Engineers. CRC Press.
  2. Goedkoop, M., Oele, M., de Schryver, A., Vieira, M., Hegger, S., 2008. SimaPro Database Manual Methods Library. PRé Consultants, The Netherlands, pp. 22-25.
  3. Hunkeler, D., Lichtenvort, K., Rebitzer, G., 2008. Environmental Life Cycle Costing. CRC Press.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, 2009. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. United Nations Environment Programme. ISBN, pp. 978-992.
  9. 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

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
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