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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
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
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Another example is a recent study that reveals bio-based materials do not always exhibit positively in every environmental aspect (Vendries et al., 2020).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Vendries et al., 2020 source
Section 3.3 (Biobased) states that biobased packaging does not consistently reduce life-cycle impacts across impact categories. It reports mixed results for biobased food service ware and says eutrophication and acidification impacts tend to be worse for biobased packaging. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“On the other hand, the limitations associated with the circular economy are the primary emphases on economic and environmental gains while neglecting the social dimension to any significant extent (Kirchherr et al., 2017; D'Amato et al., 2018; Korhonen et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Kirchherr et al., 2017 source
Section 3.3 reports that economic prosperity appears in 46% of the 114 definitions and environmental quality in 37–38%, while social equity appears in only 18–20%. The conclusion likewise says that circular-economy understandings mostly neglect social considerations. These findings support the attributed claim about the emphases of the definitions studied. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites D'Amato et al., 2018 source
- Partly supportedcites Korhonen et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes the policy and business vision of circular economy chiefly in terms of environmental and economic development, supporting the claimed emphasis. But section 4 (page unavailable) says the sharing economy brings the social dimension to the forefront of circular-economy debates; the paper therefore does not support saying that dimension is neglected to any significant extent. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Utilizing biogenic or renewable carbon as the core structural molecule offers many sectors new avenues to achieve net-zero emission targets, especially so-called hard-todecarbonize industries like petrochemicals (Kätelhön et al., 2019; Fernández et al., 2020).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Kätelhön et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not supplied) says biogenic CO₂ sources can allow a closed carbon cycle and that CCU could supply carbon feedstock for chemicals, plastics, and pharmaceuticals in a net-zero economy. The paper supports a potential route for the chemical industry, but does not establish that renewable carbon offers many sectors avenues to meet net-zero targets; it also makes the mitigation potential conditional on factors including low-carbon electricity. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Could not verifycites Fernández et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
No passage from our indexed copy addresses biogenic or renewable carbon as a structural feedstock, net-zero targets, or petrochemicals. Searches for those terms and for CO₂ utilization returned no relevant passage from the editorial, so the attributed claim cannot be verified from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Moreover, both the circular economy and the bioeconomy are resource-oriented concepts (e.g., renewable materials, material recycle), which essentially fail to address synergies and conflicts with broader ecological processes and ecosystem services such as water, carbon and nutrient cycles (including emissions and waste), quality of energy source and efficiency in production and use, and main”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites D'Amato et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and Discussion describe circular economy and bioeconomy as resource-focused, contrasting them with green economy’s broader attention to ecological processes and ecosystem services. The source does not say they fail to address all the listed matters: the Discussion identifies bioeconomy work on biosecurity and ecological concerns, while Table 6 includes energy and emissions among the concepts’ overlaps. The claim overstates a comparative limitation as a categorical failure. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites D'Amato et al., 2018 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Some definitions suggest that the bioeconomy is not intrinsically sustainable just because it is based on renewable resources (Pfau et al., 2014; Gawel et al., 2019).”
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS · p. 6 · plain
“However, the bioeconomy is not intrinsically sustainable just because it is based on renewable resources.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Pfau et al., 2014 source
Section 4.9 concludes that a bioeconomy is not necessarily sustainable. Section 4.1 rejects the idea that replacing fossil resources with renewable biomass automatically ensures sustainability. The supplied passages do not specify page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites Gawel et al., 2019 source
Section 3, “Sustainability Conflicts of the Wood-Based Bioeconomy,” says almost verbatim that the bioeconomy is not per se sustainable merely because it uses renewable resources. The Introduction likewise states that using renewable resources does not, by itself, attain sustainability. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS · p. 6 · plain
In the paper
“For example, for biodegradable bioplastics, up to 90% of the organic carbon can be converted to CO2 in about 180 days; the carbon in the form of CO2 can return to the biosphere after the use phase (Karan et al., 2019).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Karan et al., 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Human actions since the Industrial Revolution have become the primary driver of global environmental change.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tan, 2021 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There has been a flawed relationship between humans and the natural environment that has caused us to face thresholds and tipping points linked to planetary boundaries, such as biodiversity loss and a global climate crisis (Tan, 2021).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tan, 2021 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Atmospheric carbon capture via plant growth is more energyefficient than atmospheric carbon capture and utilization via direct air capture, which might require 10-25 times more electricity (Gabrielli et al., 2020).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gabrielli et al., 2020 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If these parameters can be ensured, the bio-based circular carbon economy can sustainably produce food, feed, chemicals, fuels, and materials for a plethora of industries.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 28
- Probably not a substantial claim. 58
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“When comparing petroleum- vs. bio-based packaging and food service ware, the latter exhibits lower global warming potential and fossil energy consumption but unfavorable environmental impacts in many areas, such as ozone depletion, acidification, water consumption, and eutrophication.”
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Vendries et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Disputed
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“It has basically become an 'essentially contested concept, ' a phrase coined by Gallie (1956) in which there is agreement on the means and goals of the concept but disagreements on how it is defined; it has recently been used to characterize the circular economy concept (Korhonen et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gallie, 1956 source
- Supportedcites Korhonen et al., 2018 source
The Introduction says Gallie's term applies where there is agreement on a concept's means and goals but disagreement over its definition, and proposes CE as a fit. Section 4 concludes that CE qualifies as an essentially contested concept. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“There are over 100 definitions of circular economy (e.g., Bocken et al., 2016; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Gladek, 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2017; Korhonen et al., 2018; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019; Schöggl et al., 2020; Alhawari et al., 2021).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bocken et al., 2016 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Geissdoerfer et al., 2017 source
- Partly supportedcites Kirchherr et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract says the authors gathered 114 circular-economy definitions. However, Section 3.1 (Sample overview) says those 114 entries comprise only 95 different definitions, so the source does not establish that there are over 100 distinct definitions. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Similar to the circular economy, the bioeconomy is an emerging field whose definitions and interpretations are also surrounded by confusion (Aguilar et al., 2019; Giampietro, 2019).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Aguilar et al., 2019 source
- Supportedcites Giampietro, 2019 source
Section 2.2, “Bioeconomy” (page not provided), states that definitions and interpretations of the term are surrounded by confusion. This directly supports the point attributed to Giampietro; the description of the field as emerging does not materially change it. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Similarly, the bioeconomy enables the transition from fossil-based to biomass-based industrial inputs and emphasizes the sustainable use of renewable resources for economic, environmental, and social benefits (Pfau et al., 2014; D'Amato et al., 2018; Gawel et al., 2019).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Pfau et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methodology section defines the bioeconomy in terms of replacing fossil resources with biomass, and §3.3.1 describes anticipated economic, environmental, and social benefits. But §4.9 says a bioeconomy is not necessarily sustainable: sustainable resource use requires deliberate attention rather than being an inherent feature. Page numbers were not provided for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites D'Amato et al., 2018 source
- Partly supportedcites Gawel et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Section 2 describe a transition from fossil-based inputs toward bio-based resources and link it to economic, environmental, and societal aims. But the Introduction says renewable resources do not inherently make a bioeconomy sustainable; those benefits depend on sustainable resource use, production, and consumption. The claim overstates this conditional prospect as something the bioeconomy enables and emphasizes as a matter of course. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The existing definitions of circular economy found in literature can technically be grouped into two lines of thoughts: based on the description provided by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMAF) and based on definitions developed by other researchers, as summarized in Table 1 in Korhonen et al. (2018) recent work.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Korhonen et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.2 explicitly groups the definitions into those adopting the Ellen MacArthur Foundation definition and those based on research or other researchers’ definitions. The citing sentence points to Table 1 in Korhonen et al., but the passage identifies Table 3 as the table showing these definitions. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It also introduces new, bio-based products that offer similar or superior characteristics to their petroleum-derived substitutes while maintaining a lower carbon footprint and full biodegradability (Meyer et al., 2020).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Meyer et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction anticipates that future fungal-based products will match or surpass petroleum-derived products while having a reduced or negative carbon footprint and full biodegradability. The citing sentence presents this as a current feature of bio-based products generally, rather than a prospect for fungal-based products. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“We agree with some researchers that the circular bioeconomy should be viewed as an emerging concept aiming to address the debate on the definite contribution of the circular economy and the bioeconomy to resolving sustainability challenges (D'Amato et al., 2017, 2018).”
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS · p. 6 · hedged
“Although the relationship between the circular economy and the bioeconomy is still debatable, we suggest viewing it as an emerging concept aiming to address the debate on the definite contributions of the circular economy and the bioeconomy to resolving sustainability challenges.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites D'Amato et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (section 4; page unavailable) says scholars have recently advocated integrating circular-economy principles into bioeconomy and describes a ‘circular bioeconomy’ intended to improve resource efficiency. It does not present that emerging concept as a way to settle the debate over either economy’s definitive contribution to resolving sustainability challenges. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites D'Amato et al., 2018 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS · p. 6 · hedged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The scientific and research content of the circular economy concept is rather superficial and unorganized.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, for biodegradable bioplastics, up to 90% of the organic carbon can be converted to CO2 in about 180 days; the carbon in the form of CO2 can return to the biosphere after the use phase (Karan et al., 2019).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Karan et al., 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The existing circular economy definitions can basically be grouped into two lines of thought: those based on the definition provided by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and those from other researchers.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding the bioeconomy, there is no consensus concerning what it actually implies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although multifaceted and still evolving, it is noteworthy that all these concepts are complementary and have the common goal of creating a more sustainable future.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The common theme across all concepts is a push toward increasing circularity within the economic system, while the circular bioeconomy also stresses the use of bio-based materials.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A circular economy tries to reduce the dependency on (new) natural resource extraction while increasing the time resources spend within the technosphere through alternate use cycles.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The circular economy can be complemented by the bioeconomy, a concept that can incorporate economic activities related to the invention, development, production, and use of biological products and processes for energy, materials, and chemicals (Biofuture Platform, 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Biofuture Platform, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although it can potentially guide a transition to more sustainable production and consumption, the concept is still in a nascent stage, with many remaining challenges and research questions to be addressed.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Strengthening the initial transition from our current linear economy to a circular one is one possible option to balance our use of finite natural resources while making our economic system more resilient.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: All forms of capital rely on natural capital, and natural capital is non-substitutable.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on the aforementioned definitions, we conclude that to achieve a circular economy is principally to slow, narrow, and close the material resource loops, all built on the foundation of renewable energy and non-toxic materials, as well as through long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling (as illustrated in Figure 1A ).”
- Also stated in: § [Circular Bioeconomy Concepts-A Perspective](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.701509/full) · p. 1 · plain
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § [Circular Bioeconomy Concepts-A Perspective](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.701509/full) · p. 1 · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Independent of the concept, carbon will remain the core molecule that builds fuels, fiber, chemicals, and other products.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, achieving net-zero emission sectors depends on decarbonizing the energy system and appropriately integrating and linking utilization routes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There is no disagreement that bio-based products are considered renewable and potentially offer reduced environmental impacts compared to their petroleum-derived counterparts (Adom et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Adom et al., 2014 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, organizations and researchers currently define the circular economy concept differently, resulting in inconsistencies and difficulty in effectively implementing the framework.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ultimately, the challenge for stakeholders is that there is no consensus on the relationship between the circular economy and the bioeconomy, which is to say that there is no single definition of the circular bioeconomy besides stakeholders' own understandings of the two individual concepts.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The circular economy has become an 'essentially contested concept,' which means there is agreement on the means and goals of the concept but disagreements on its definition.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there is an ongoing debate on the sustainability aspect of the bioeconomy.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our view, a sustainable bioeconomy will require more than the substitution of fossil resources with renewable biological resources; it will also require a sustainable supply chain, including sustainable biomass feedstock production and logistics, sustainable biomass conversion processes, and sustainable products.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, biobased products derived from renewable biological carbon (the main component of biological compounds such as biomass) are recycled and reused through the biosphere (i.e., carbon cycle).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the success of the bioeconomy will depend heavily on the development of disruptive biorefining technologies for the sustainable transformation of bio-based and renewable resources to high-value bio-based products, materials, and fuels.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is apparent that there is no single universal definition for the circular economy.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, a sustainable bioeconomy can be achieved by integrating with other interdisciplinary areas, such as the circular economy, discussed further in the next section.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within these definitions, it is implicit that the bioeconomy has to do with the use of renewable biological resources such as biomass to produce renewable biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower for economic, environmental, and social benefits (see Figure 1B ).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The circular bioeconomy is essentially the intersection between the circular economy and the bioeconomy.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The resource cycles-namely slowing, closing, and narrowing material resource loops-were first introduced by Bocken et al. (2016) and can serve as a working definition that is simple yet practical for a circular economy practitioner to interpret and implement.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bocken et al., 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This implies that, in our opinion, the circular bioeconomy is truly a bio-based circular carbon economy-one that removes, efficiently uses, and sequesters more carbon than it emits (Babson, 2020).”
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS · p. 7 · plain
“Additionally, the circular bioeconomy is truly a bio-based circular carbon economy.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Babson, 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS · p. 7 · plain
In the paper
“According to the butterfly diagram, the circular economy includes both biological and technical cycles.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The atmospheric carbon sequestration in plants via photosynthesis, the conversion of the biogenic carbon into a series of shortand long-lived products, and their continuous cycling are part of circular carbon economy strategies that capture carbon in the technosphere over the long term ( Figure 2 ).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Additionally, when used as an energy source, biofuels and biopower are renewable energy that can displace fossil fuels and power to alleviate fossil resource depletion (Government Printing Office, 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Government Printing Office, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The desired outcome of the circular economy transition is to overcome the current production and consumption model based on continuous growth and increasing resource throughput by decoupling economic growth from environmental pressure (e.g., Ghisellini et al., 2016; Murray et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, a bio-based circular carbon economy represents a framework to increase circularity within the economic system.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Bio-based products substitute fossil carbon with biogenic carbon originated from biomass, and their end-of-life carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are biogenic CO2, which is considered carbon-neutral [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites IPCC, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From a sustainability perspective, it has to be a sustainable bioeconomy-not merely a bioeconomy-to meet sustainability challenges.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: 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 paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most stakeholders would interpret the circular bioeconomy as the intersection between the two emerging concepts of the circular economy and the bioeconomy, as depicted in Figure 1C .”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“On one hand, the circular economy focuses on efficiency gains and slowing, narrowing, and closing material loops to reduce resource consumption and system waste via input reductions, sustainable design, improved practices, waste reuse, and recycling (Bocken et al., 2016; Ghisellini et al., 2016; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2017; Murray et al., 2017; D'Amato et al., 2018; Ellen Mac”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The bioeconomy is only associated with the biological cycle, in which materials are made from biological nutrients (i.e., bio-based products) that can be safely reintroduced into the biosphere.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, an increase in biofuel demand will lead to an increase in biomass demand, which in turn will lead to competition for arable land use (i.e., land-grabbing for biomass feedstock production), freshwater consumption, and even food production (i.e., food vs. fuel), resulting in social unrest or social sustainability concerns.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the fuel efficiency gain for passenger vehicles may lead to more driving, resulting in more greenhouse gas emissions.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the existence of a circular bioeconomy makes sense only if the two concepts complement each other; each plays an enabling role.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the relationship between the circular economy and the bioeconomy is rather complex and an ongoing debate.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sustainable bioeconomy is not just about substituting fossil resources with renewable resources; it will require sustainable biomass feedstock production, biomass conversion processes, and products.”
- Also stated in: § [Circular Bioeconomy Concepts-A Perspective](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.701509/full) · p. 1 · plain
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: 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.
- Also stated in: § [Circular Bioeconomy Concepts-A Perspective](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.701509/full) · p. 1 · plain
In the paper
“Instead, the circular bioeconomy is actually 'more than bioeconomy or circular economy alone' (D'Amato et al., 2018).”
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS · p. 6 · plain
“Ultimately, the circular bioeconomy is more than the bioeconomy or circular economy alone; the two concepts complement each other, resulting in a more sustainable framework.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites D'Amato et al., 2018 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS · p. 6 · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Circular economy principally means different things to different people.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Carbon is an integral part of the circular bioeconomy; it is critical to close the carbon cycle and create an additional carbon sink capability in the technosphere by utilizing biogenic carbon for products and materials circulated in the same or improved use cycles.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is generally agreed that the bioeconomy implicitly has to do with the use of renewable biological resources to produce renewable biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower for economic, environmental, and social benefits.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is also evident that the main focus of the circular economy appears to be on economic prosperity, followed by environment quality, and the social aspect of sustainability (i.e., human well-being) is rarely explored.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, with so many various definitions, how an organization implements the circular economy framework will strongly depend on how its decision makers or stakeholders interpret the concept and its definitions.”
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lastly, a sustainable circular bioeconomy transition will necessitate a set of consistent metrics that fit all products and industries.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Circular economy concepts-including a circular bioeconomy-aim to transition the current, essentially linear, economic system to a more sustainable one.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“An expanded bioeconomy could potentially displace economic output and jobs in different sectors and could also compete with other advanced technologies (e.g., electric vehicles) [Biomass Research Development Board (BRDB), 2018].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Biomass Research Development Board (BRDB), 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The circular bioeconomy is not just about adopting circularity principles such as biomass cascading (i.e., putting materials into different uses after end of life across different value streams), waste hierarchy, and efficiency in the utilization of biomass or renewable resources (i.e., extracting the maximum practical benefits from products and generating the minimum amount of waste) (Bezama, 201”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bezama, 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably, organizations and researchers define the concept differently, resulting in confusion and difficulty in effectively implementing the framework.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The bio-based circular carbon economy, in particular, stresses capturing atmospheric carbon via photosynthesis and exploiting this unique feature to the fullest extent possible.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The bio-based circular carbon economy is a bioeconomy that focuses on leveraging and exploiting the atmospheric carbon drawdown potential of biomass feedstock to the fullest extent possible.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This can also serve as an example of a circular bioeconomy and how the bioeconomy can enable the circular economy to resolve sustainability challenges.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conclude that to achieve a circular economy is to essentially slow, narrow, and close material resource loops, all built on the foundation of renewable energy and non-toxic material.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
Citations
Cites
The Circular Economy–A new sustainability paradigm?
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048 · Cited by 9,360
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
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007 · Cited by 6,536
Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy
Bocken, N. M. P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & van der Grinten, B. (2016) · Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering · doi:10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124 · Cited by 4,002
Murray, A., Skene, K., & Haynes, K. (2017) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2 · Cited by 3,328
Towards circular economy implementation: A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry
Lieder, M., & Rashid, A. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042 · Cited by 2,762
IX.—Essentially Contested Concepts
Gallie, W. B. (1956) · Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society · doi:10.1093/aristotelian/56.1.167 · Cited by 2,280
Circular economy as an essentially contested concept
Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., & Birkie, S. E. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111 · Cited by 1,568
Green, circular, bio economy: a comparative analysis of sustainability avenues
D'Amato, D., Droste, N., Allen, B., Kettunen, M., Lähtinen, K., Korhonen, J., Leskinen, P., Matthies, B. D., & Toppinen, A. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.053 · Cited by 1,077 · cited 2×
“…conflicts with broader ecological processes and ecosystem services such as water, carbon and nutrient cycles (including emissions and waste), quality of energy source and efficiency in production and use, and maintenance of biodiversity, ecosystems, and related services (D’Amato et al., 2017, 2018).”
BackgroundGreen economy and related concepts: An overview
Loiseau, E., Saikku, L., Antikainen, R., Droste, N., Hansjürgens, B., Pitkänen, K., Leskinen, P., Kuikman, P. J., & Thomsen, M. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.024 · Cited by 997
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–317 of 317
Celi, G., D’Atteo, V., & Sica, E. (2026) · Socio-Economic Planning Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.seps.2026.102578
Rayeen, F., Mishra, A., Suhail, S., Gupta, A., Tripathi, M., Singh, P., Singh, P. K., & Pathak, N. (2026) · Fungal biology · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-0339-0_16
Circular Economy as an Instrument of Sustainable Development of the European Union and Serbia
Grujić, B., & MarinaStević, I. (2026) · Sustainable finance · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-26008-6_18
Filippi, K., Smyk, N., Sjöström, J., Li, H., Brandt, L., Psaki, O., Koutinas, A., & Sevastyanova, O. (2026) · International Journal of Biological Macromolecules · doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2026.153911
Liew, K., Abidin, N. A., Yong, A. S. K., et al. (2026) · Open Agriculture · doi:10.1515/opag-2025-0519
“The interactions between human activities and the environment have traditionally followed a linear economic model, in which natural resources are extracted, processed, and utilized, with unused materials and by-products ultimately discarded as waste [15, 16].”
Oroski, F. D. A., Alves, F. C., Freitas, M. D. F., et al. (2026) · Biofuels Bioproducts and Biorefining · doi:10.1002/bbb.70202
Poly(lactic Acid) and Acai Fiber composite
Cohen, L. A. F. P., & Ayres, E. (2026) · DAT Journal · doi:10.29147/datjournal.v11i2.1041
Compounds Derived from Nature: From Chemical Diversity to Sustainable Applications
Volkis, V. V. V. (2026) · Compounds · doi:10.3390/compounds6030052
Putra, W. K. A., Effendi, I., Budiardi, T., et al. (2026) · Aquaculture Aquarium Conservation & Legislation · doi:10.67784/0007
Life-cycle modeling of integrated agro-industrial and urban waste biorefineries in Brazil
Cerdán, J. M. A., Borges, T. D. M. D., Maradini, P. D. S., de Oliveira, G. H. D., Fuess, L. T., Zaiat, M., & Ometto, A. R. (2026) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.149383
Endophytic fungi as enzyme platforms for sustainable food systems
Soudagar, S. B., Dsouza, M. V., Naik, K., Nasir, N., Eelager, M. P., Kumbar, V., Dodamani, S., Parthasarathy, M., & Dalbanjan, N. P. (2026) · Food and Humanity · doi:10.1016/j.foohum.2026.101444
Cyclodextrin gluconotransferase: an overview
Allode, T. D.-M., & Vodounon, C. A. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-41694-1.00014-9
Universities as Regional Innovation Systems for the Circular Bioeconomy
Frisvold, G. B., Duval, D., Blankinship, J. C., et al. (2026) · Bioresources and Bioproducts · doi:10.3390/bioresourbioprod2040022
Künstliche Intelligenz, Langlebigkeit und Gebäude in der Kreislaufwirtschaft
Mulhall, D., & Hansen, K. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-51057-2_24
Biomass-derived substrates for lipase production: Strategies and potential
Fé, L. X. S. G. M., Espindola, G. S., Dantas, J. L. D. C., et al. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-13308-4.00002-6
Shah, J. K., Sharma, M., Joshi, S., et al. (2026) · Circular Economy and Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s43615-026-01163-z
Steingrímsson, G., Davíðsdóttir, B., Pétursson, J. G., et al. (2026) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2026.109217
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
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2021-07-12
- Volume
- 2
- ISSN
- 2673-4524 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3180159242
- Semantic Scholar
- 4086e5da0d782573fce704edf9e71c7ae8b0cd30
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
