nach oben

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Erschienen in:

18.09.2021 | CRITICAL REVIEW

Exploring the effectiveness of grey literature indicators and life cycle assessment in assessing circular economy at the micro level: a comparative analysis

verfasst von: Erik Roos Lindgreen, Giovanni Mondello, Roberta Salomone, Francesco Lanuzza, Giuseppe Saija

Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Ausgabe 11/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

Methods and tools to measure Circular Economy (CE) are in an early stage of development, especially on the micro level, and only limited guidance is available to companies’ decision-making processes related to CE solutions. In this context, the aim of this paper is to explore the suitability and effectiveness of grey literature CE indicators and the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method in measuring circularity at product or process level.

Methods

The analysis is based on two different comparative case-studies specifically related to the packaging sector, including glass and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, and to the food waste (FW) management sector, focusing on specific FW treatment activities. A review-of-reviews of CE metrics at the micro level is presented first in order to provide a theoretical overview on this specific theme and identify the available grey literature CE indicators and the role of LCA. Then, inventory data from both case studies are used as input to calculate LCA indicators as well as selected product-level grey literature CE indicators. Finally, the results are compared to critically analyze the potentiality in assessing circularity of these two streams of CE micro level assessment (LCA and CE indicators).

Results and discussion

The main findings underscore that despite the common purpose of the selected CE indicators, the results related to the circularity performance may strongly vary depending on the evaluated case study and on the type of grey literature CE indicator that is applied. Regarding the application of the LCA method, the results highlight that, although a product may present high circularity performance, it does not necessarily carry lower environmental burdens. In addition, the LCA method allows obtaining useful information about both the environmental and circularity performance of the assessed case-studies.

Conclusions

The LCA method is presented as a suitable and effective method that businesses can apply to start a commitment towards CE. LCA can be considered the basic structured system on which to build a more complete metric framework for quantification of CE, specifically for companies that are aiming to operate more sustainably. On the contrary, grey literature CE indicators may not be always appropriate for assessing specific sectors or effectively contribute to assess environmental sustainability.

Vorheriger Artikel Future scenarios and life cycle assessment: systematic review and recommendations

Nächster Artikel Theory without practice: a reply to the note from Heijungs on the average versus marginal debate in Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Blomsma F, Brennan G (2017) The emergence of circular economy: a new framing around prolonging resource productivity. J Ind Ecol 21:603–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12603CrossRef

Blum NU, Haupt M, Bening CR (2020) Why “Circular” doesn’t always mean “Sustainable.” Resour Conserv Recycl 162:105042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105042CrossRef

British Standards (2017) Framework for implementing the principles of the circular economy in organizations—Guide. BSI Stand Ltd

Calisto Friant M, Vermeulen WJV Salomone R (2020) A typology of circular economy discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 161(May), 104917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104917

Cayzer S, Griffiths P, Beghetto V (2017) Design of indicators for measuring product performance in the circular economy. Int J Sustain Eng 10:289–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2017.1333543CrossRef

Chen Z, Huang L (2019) Application review of LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) in circular economy: from the perspective of PSS (Product Service System). Procedia CIRP 83:210–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.141CrossRef

Circle Economy (2019) Circle Assessment. Measuring circularity and identifying opportunities to adapt circular strategies https://www.circle-economy.com/tool/circleassessment/#.XIfaWS2h1Bw. Accessed 8 Mar 2020.

Civancik-Uslu D, Puig R, Ferrer L, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2019) Influence of end-of-life allocation, credits and other methodological issues in LCA of compounds: an in-company circular economy case study on packaging. J Clean Prod 212:925–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.076CrossRef

CML (2002) CML (Institute of Environmental Science) Life Cycle Assessment: an operational guide to the ISO standards. In: Guinée J (ed) Centrum Milieukende. Leiden University, Leiden

CML (2016) CML (Institute of Environmental Science). Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands, Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands

COM (2014) European Commission. Towards a Circular Economy: a Zero Waste Programme for Europe, Brussels.

COM (2018) European Commission. A monitoring framework for the circular economy, Brussels

Corona B, Shen L, Reike D et al (2019) Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—a review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics. Resour Conserv Recycl 151:104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498CrossRef

Corona B, Shen L, Reike D, Carreón JR, Worrell E (2019) Resources , Conservation & Recycling Towards sustainable development through the circular economy — A review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 151(May), 104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498

Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute (2014) Impact study: Technical report—Pilot study impact study of the cradle to cradle certified products program. www.c2ccertified.org/impact-study. Accessed 8 Mar 2020.

Di Maio F, Rem PC (2015) A Robust Indicator for Promoting Circular Economy through Recycling. J Environ Prot (irvine, Calif) 06:1095–1104. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2015.610096CrossRef

Ecopreneur.eu (2018) Circularity Check. European Sustainable Business Federation. https://ecopreneur.eu/circularity-check-landing-page/. Accessed 8 March 2020.

Elia V, Gnoni MG, Tornese F (2017) Measuring circular economy strategies through index methods: a critical analysis. J Clean Prod 142:2741–2751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.196CrossRef

EMF (2013) Towards the Circular Economy: Opportunities for the consumer goods sector

EMF (2020) Circulytics: Method introduction. Retrieved from https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/apply/circulytics-measuring-circularity Accessed 15 March 2020.

EMF and Granta (2015). Circularity Indicators. An approach to measuring circularity; Methodology. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) and Granta Design.

European Commission (2020) Circular economy action plan. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2775/855540CrossRef

Evans J and Bocken N (2013) Circular Economy Toolkit. Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing. http://circulareconomytoolkit.org. Accessed 28 Feb 2020.

Farace D and Schöpfel J (2010) Grey literature in library and information studies. KG Saur.

Fauzi RT, Lavoie P, Sorelli L et al (2019) Exploring the current challenges and opportunities of life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 11:636. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030636CrossRef

Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2:3309–3322. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2103309CrossRef

Frischknecht R, Jungbluth, N, Althaus HJ, Doka G, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M, Wernet G (2007) Overview and methodology. ecoinvent report No. 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, 2007.

Geng Y, Fu J, Sarkis J, Xue B (2012) Towards a national circular economy indicator system in China: an evaluation and critical analysis. J Clean Prod 23:216–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.005CrossRef

Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S (2016) A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J Clean Prod 114:11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007CrossRef

Guinee JB (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:311. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978897CrossRef

Hu Y, He X, Poustie M (2018) Can legislation promote a circular economy? A material flow-based evaluation of the circular degree of the Chinese economy. Sustainability 10:990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040990CrossRef

Ideal and CO Explore BV (2016) Circularity Calculator. http://www.circularitycalculator.com/. Accessed 15 March 2020

ISO (2006a) 14040 Environmental management–life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. Int Organ Stand

ISO (2006b) 14044 Environmental management–life cycle assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. Int Organ Stand

ISO (2006c) ISO 14025 Environmental labels and declarations — Type III environmental declarations — Principles and procedures. Int Organ Stand

ISPRA (2019) Rapporto rifiuti urbani—Edizione 2019. Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale. ISPRA, Rapporti 313/2019.

Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005CrossRef

Korhonen J, Honkasalo A, Seppälä J (2018) Circular economy: the concept and its limitations. Ecol Econ 143:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041CrossRef

Kristensen HS, Mosgaard MA (2020) A review of micro level indicators for a circular economy—moving away from the three dimensions of sustainability? J Clean Prod 243:118531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118531CrossRef

Kristensen HS, Remmen A (2019) A framework for sustainable value propositions in product-service systems. J Clean Prod 223:25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.074CrossRef

Lieder M, Rashid A (2016) Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. J Clean Prod 115:36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042CrossRef

Linder M, Sarasini S, van Loon P (2017) A metric for quantifying product-level circularity. J Ind Ecol 21:545–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12552CrossRef

Mahood Q, Van Eerd D, Irvin E (2014) Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Res Synth Methods 5:221–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1106CrossRef

Meherishi L, Narayana SA, Ranjani KS (2019) Sustainable packaging for supply chain management in the circular economy: a review. J Clean Prod 237:117582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.057CrossRef

Merli R, Preziosi M, Acampora A (2018) How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 178:703–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112CrossRef

Millar N, McLaughlin E, Börger T (2019) The circular economy: swings and roundabouts? Ecol Econ 158:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.012CrossRef

Mondello G, Salomone R, Ioppolo G et al (2017) Comparative LCA of alternative scenarios for waste treatment: the case of food waste production by the mass-retail sector. Sustainability 9:827. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050827CrossRef

Moraga G, Huysveld S, Mathieux F et al (2019) Circular economy indicators: what do they measure? Resour Conserv Recycl 146:452–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.045CrossRef

Moreno Ruiz E, Weidema BP, Bauer C, Nemecek T, Vadenbo CO, Treyerb K, Wernet G (2013) Documentation of changes implemented in ecoinvent Data 3.0. Ecoinvent Report 5 (v4). St. Gallen: The Ecoinvent Centre.

Niero M, Hauschild MZ (2017) Closing the loop for packaging: finding a framework to operationalize circular economy strategies. Procedia CIRP 61:685–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.209CrossRef

Niero M, Hauschild MZ, Hoffmeyer SB, Olsen SI (2017) Combining eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness for continuous loop beverage packaging systems: lessons from the Carlsberg circular community. J Ind Ecol 21:742–753. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12554CrossRef

Niero M, Kalbar PP (2019) Coupling material circularity indicators and life cycle based indicators: a proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at the product level. Resour Conserv Recycl 140:305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.002CrossRef

Niero M, Olsen SI (2016) Circular economy: To be or not to be in a closed product loop? A Life Cycle Assessment of aluminium cans with inclusion of alloying elements. Resour Conserv Recycl 114:18–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.06.023CrossRef

Niero M, Rivera XCS (2018) The role of life cycle sustainability assessment in the implementation of circular economy principles in organizations. Procedia CIRP 69:793–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.022CrossRef

Papargyropoulou E, Lozano R et al (2014) The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J Clean Prod 76:106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020CrossRef

Parchomenko A, Nelen D, Gillabel J, Rechberger H (2019) Measuring the circular economy - a multiple correspondence analysis of 63 metrics. J Clean Prod 210:200–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.357CrossRef

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

Potting J, Hekkert M, Worrell E, Hanemaaijer A (2017) Circular Economy: Measuring innovation in the product chain - Policy report. PBL Netherlands Environ Assess Agency

Prosman EJ, Sacchi R (2018) New environmental supplier selection criteria for circular supply chains: lessons from a consequential LCA study on waste recovery. J Clean Prod 172:2782–2792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.134CrossRef

Reike D, Vermeulen WJV, Witjes S (2018) The circular economy: new or refurbished as CE 3.0? — exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resour Conserv Recycl 135:246–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027CrossRef

Rigamonti L, Grosso M, Giugliano M (2010) Life cycle assessment of sub-units composing a MSW management system. J Clean Prod 18:1652–1662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.06.029CrossRef

Rincón-Moreno J, Ormazábal M, Álvarez MJ, Jaca C (2021) Advancing circular economy performance indicators and their application in Spanish companies. J Clean Prod 279:123605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123605CrossRef

Roos Lindgreen E, Salomone R, Reyes T (2020) A critical review of academic approaches, methods and tools to assess circular economy at the micro level. Sustainability 12:4973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124973CrossRef

Saidani M (2018) Monitoring and advancing the circular economy transition: Circularity indicators and tools applied to the heavy vehicle industry (Doctoral dissertation, Paris Saclay)

Saidani M, Yannou B, Leroy Y, Cluzel F (2017) How to assess product performance in the circular economy? Proposed requirements for the design of a circularity measurement framework. Recycling 2:6. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling2010006CrossRef

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

Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013) Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1653–1672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0508-6CrossRef

Salomone R, Ioppolo G, Saija G (2013) The implementation of product-oriented environmental management systems in agri-food SMEs. In: Product-Oriented Environmental Management Systems (POEMS): Improving Sustainability and Competitiveness in the Agri-Food Chain with Innovative Environmental Management Tools

Salomone R, Saija G, Mondello G et al (2017) Environmental impact of food waste bioconversion by insects: application of Life Cycle Assessment to process using Hermetia illucens. J Clean Prod 140:890–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.154CrossRef

Sassanelli C, Rosa P, Rocca R, Terzi S (2019) Circular economy performance assessment methods: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 229:440–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.019CrossRef

Scheepens AE, Vogtländer JG, Brezet JC (2016) Two life cycle assessment (LCA) based methods to analyse and design complex (regional) circular economy systems. Case: making water tourism more sustainable. J Clean Prod 114:257–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.075CrossRef

Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039CrossRef

Stahel WR (2016) The circular economy. Nature 531:435–438. https://doi.org/10.1038/531435aCrossRef

Stewart R, Niero M (2018) Circular economy in corporate sustainability strategies: a review of corporate sustainability reports in the fast-moving consumer goods sector. Bus Strateg Environ 27:1005–1022. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2048CrossRef

Stumpf L, Schöggl JP, Baumgartner RJ (2019) Circular Economy Business Strategies - A mixed methods analysis of 131 case studies. Proceedings of the 19th E Roundtable Sustain Consump Prod (ERSCP 2019) 841–854.

Suárez-Eiroa B, Fernández E, Méndez-Martínez G, Soto-Oñate D (2019) Operational principles of circular economy for sustainable development: linking theory and practice. J Clean Prod 214:952–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.271CrossRef

Tecchio P, McAlister C, Mathieux F, Ardente F (2017) In search of standards to support circularity in product policies: a systematic approach. J Clean Prod 168:1533–1546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.198CrossRef

UL (2018) UL LLC Outline of investigation for measuring and reporting circular economy aspects of products, sites and organizations. UL Environment Outline, Edition one.

VBDO (2015) Benchmark Circular Business Practices 2015: A comparative study of 52 Dutch listed companies. https://www.circulairondernemen.nl/uploads/79a8b3ab7126a391674b6c20b75153f7.pdf. Accessed 8 March 2020.

Walker S, Coleman N, Hodgson P et al (2018) Evaluating the environmental dimension of material efficiency strategies relating to the circular economy. Sustainability 10:666. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030666CrossRef

WBCSD (2018). World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) .Circular metrics landscape analysis. https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Circular-Economy/Factor-10/Metrics-Measurement/Resources/Landscape-analysis. Accessed 8 March 2020

WBCSD (2020). World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Circular Transition Indicators V1.0. Metrics for business by business. https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Circular-Economy/Factor-10/Metrics-Measurement/Resources/Circular-Transition-Indicators-V1.0-Metrics-for-business-by-business. Accessed 8 March 2020

Witjes S, Lozano R (2016) Towards a more Circular Economy: proposing a framework linking sustainable public procurement and sustainable business models. Resour Conserv Recycl 112:37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.04.015CrossRef

Yuan Z, Bi J, Moriguichi Y (2008) The circular economy: a new development strategy in China. J Ind Ecol 10:4–8. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819806775545321CrossRef

Titel: Exploring the effectiveness of grey literature indicators and life cycle assessment in assessing circular economy at the micro level: a comparative analysis
verfasst von: Erik Roos Lindgreen
Giovanni Mondello
Roberta Salomone
Francesco Lanuzza
Giuseppe Saija
Publikationsdatum: 18.09.2021
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment / Ausgabe 11/2021
Print ISSN: 0948-3349
Elektronische ISSN: 1614-7502
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01972-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results and discussion

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2021

Practice without theory: a reply to the note from Huijbregts, Hellweg, and Hertwich on the average versus marginal debate in life cycle impact assessment

Environmental co-benefits and trade-offs of climate mitigation strategies applied to net-zero-emission neighbourhoods

An applicability assessment and sensitivity analysis of land use impact models: application of the LANCA model in site-specific conditions

Correction to: Waste is not a service

Theory without practice: a reply to the note from Heijungs on the average versus marginal debate in Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Influence of methodological choices on maintenance and replacement in building LCA