Cited by 317Bioeconomy and Sustainability DevelopmentSustainable Supply Chain ManagementSustainable Industrial Ecology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 17 of the 50 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Circular Bioeconomy Concepts—A Perspective

Open access
Tan, Eric C. D., Lamers, Patrick·2021·Frontiers in Sustainability

Abstract

Circular economy concepts—including a circular bioeconomy—aim to transition the current, essentially linear, economic system to a more sustainable one. However, organizations and researchers currently define the circular economy concept differently, resulting in inconsistencies and difficulty in effectively implementing the framework. In this paper, we provide our perspective on the conceptual definitions of the circular economy, bioeconomy, and circular bioeconomy, outlining potential overlaps and differences and proposing a harmonized interpretation that stresses the importance of the carbon cycle. We conclude that the key goal of a circular economy is to slow, narrow, and close material resource loops, built on the foundation of renewable energy and non-toxic materials. Further, a sustainable bioeconomy goes beyond simply switching fossil resources with renewable, biological resources. It requires low-carbon energy inputs, sustainable supply chains, and promising disruptive conversion technologies for the sustainable transformation of renewable bioresources to high-value bio-based products, materials, and fuels. The bio-based circular carbon economy, in particular, stresses capturing atmospheric carbon via photosynthesis and exploiting this unique feature to the fullest extent possible. It sits at the intersection between the circular economy and the bioeconomy concept, resulting in a framework that focuses on closing the carbon cycle and stressing the opportunity to create an additional carbon sink capability in the technosphere by utilizing biogenic carbon for products and materials that are circulated in same or improved use cycles. Lastly, a sustainable circular bioeconomy transition will necessitate a set of consistent metrics that fit all products and industries.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This perspective argues that circular economy, bioeconomy, and circular bioeconomy are inconsistently defined, and proposes a harmonized interpretation centered on the carbon cycle. It concludes that a circular bioeconomy is best understood as a bio-based circular carbon economy that slows, narrows, and closes material loops while closing the carbon cycle and creating an additional technosphere carbon sink.

Key findings

  • Circular economy has over 100 definitions and is an “essentially contested concept”; the authors propose a working definition of slowing, narrowing, and closing material resource loops, built on renewable energy and non-toxic materials.
  • The bioeconomy is not intrinsically sustainable merely because it uses renewable biological resources; a sustainable bioeconomy requires sustainable supply chains, low-carbon energy inputs, and disruptive conversion technologies.
  • The circular bioeconomy is the intersection of circular economy and bioeconomy, but the authors argue it is “more than bioeconomy or circular economy alone” and should be viewed as a bio-based circular carbon economy.
  • The paper cites that atmospheric carbon capture via plant growth is more energy-efficient than direct air capture, which “might require 10–25 times more electricity,” and that up to 90% of organic carbon in biodegradable bioplastics can convert to CO₂ in about 180 days.

Methods

  • Conceptual perspective paper; no empirical data collection or sample.
  • Reviews and compares existing definitions of circular economy, bioeconomy, and circular bioeconomy from academic, policy, and organizational sources.
  • Proposes a harmonized interpretation and a bio-based circular carbon economy framework, illustrated with conceptual figures.

Limitations

  • Stated: the circular bioeconomy concept is still nascent, definitions are contested, and there is no consensus on the relationship between circular economy and bioeconomy; future work is needed on metrics that fit all products and industries.
  • Evident: as a perspective, the paper does not conduct a systematic review or provide empirical validation; its conclusions rely on selected literature and the authors’ interpretation.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/frsus.2021.701509

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

29 Own interpretation · 20 No basis given · 13 No full text of the sources · 9 Sources not found · 8 Partly supported · 2 Supported · 2 Supported so far · 1 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 19 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 28
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 58
65 of 65
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    All forms of capital rely on natural capital, and natural capital is non-substitutable.

    “All forms of capital rely on natural capital, with natural capital being non-substitutable.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Academia, industry, and policymakers frequently and inexactly interchange the terms 'circular bioeconomy' and 'sustainability.'

    “Additionally, academia, industry, and policymakers frequently and inexactly interchange the terms 'circular bioeconomy' and 'sustainability.'”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The current bioeconomy is still largely relying on non-renewable energy and fossil-based raw materials like nitrogen fertilizers, organic chemicals, and polymers predominantly derived from petroleum oil and gas.

    “The current bioeconomy is still largely relying on non-renewable energy and fossil-based raw materials like nitrogen fertilizers, organic chemicals, and polymers that are predominantly derived from petroleum oil and gas.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Sustainable biomass production practices, including preventing potential adverse side effects from the utilization of primary (purpose-grown) biomass, can be ensured.

    “The critical assumption here is sustainable biomass production practices, including preventing potential adverse side effects from the utilization of primary (purpose-grown) biomass.”
4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Tan, E. C. D., & Lamers, P.
Affiliations
National Laboratory of the Rockies (US)
Corresponding author
Tan, Eric C. D.
Venue
Frontiers in Sustainability
Published
2021-07-12
Volume
2
ISSN
2673-4524 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3180159242
Cited by
317
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 3
FWCI
61.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Sustainable Industrial Ecology
Keywords
circular economy, circular bioeconomy, bioeconomy, carbon cycle, carbon sink, bioproducts, biofuels, supply chain sustainability, low-carbon energy, circular carbon economy, conceptual definitions

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-29, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-29 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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