Resources, Conservation & Recycling 197 (2023) 107072

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Circular economy initiatives are no guarantee for increased plastic

circularity: A framework for the systematic comparison of initiatives
M. Lisiecki a, b, *, A. Damgaard a, K. Ragaert b, T.F. Astrup a
a
Department of Environmental and Resource Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet, Building 115, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
b
Circular Plastics, Department of Circular Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Maastricht University, Urmonderbaan 22, 6162 Geleen, The
Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Plastic plays a prominent role within circular economy, with many stakeholders promoting initiatives to increase
Circular economy plastic circularity during the manufacturing, use and end-of-life phases. Despite well-meant intentions, many
Plastic circularity initiatives are characterized by a lack of compliance with basic circular economy principles, implementation
Waste management
barriers, and limited effects on the intended long-term plastic circularity. This study provides a systematic
Recycling
Plastic
evaluation framework for comparison of plastic initiatives, based on 17 criteria addressing key aspects of plastic
Initiative circularity. A three-level likelihood ranking approach is applied to analyse the impact of 54 initiatives targeting
plastic circularity in a European context. It was found that relatively few of these initiatives were readily
implementable without considerable investments, e.g. in new waste management and recycling technologies,
and changes in plastic production and product design. The results clearly suggest that current suggestions for
circular economy initiatives targeting plastic may have limited effect and not lead to the intended impacts
without the support of new regulations and change in plastic demand and consumption. The study stresses the
importance of synergies and cooperation between stakeholders across the value chain to reach plastic circularity.
The framework offers a consistent basis for decision-makers to identify critical barriers and enablers in relation to
plastic circularity characteristics, but the approach may also be applied to other topic areas.

1. Introduction development of circularity performance indicators (Huysman et al.,

The circular economy (CE) is a prominent strategy in the European
transition toward a more sustainable society. To support this transition,
and as part of the European Green Deal (EC, 2019), the European Union
(EU) has launched a range of strategic roadmaps, including the Circular
Economy Action Plan (EC, 2020). The implementation of a circular
economy has received considerable attention in the literature (e.g.
Sitadewi et al., 2021), as well as from policymakers, governments and
intergovernmental agencies at the local, regional, national and inter­
national levels (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Lieder and Rashid, 2016; Kirch­
herr et al., 2017; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Several studies have stressed
the need to measure progress toward the circular economy (Bocken
et al., 2017; Borrello et al., 2020), and many attempts have been made to
measure circularity, such as reviews of circularity indicators (Moraga
et al., 2019; Kristensen and Mosgaard, 2020; de Oliveira et al., 2021;
dos Santos Gonçalves and Campos, 2022), assessments of circularity
metrics (Sassanelli et al., 2019; Kamp Albæk et al., 2020), the
2017; Saidani et al., 2019) and reviews of comparison methods (Saidani
et al., 2017; Parchomenko et al., 2019; Niero and Kalbar, 2019).
Plastic plays a prominent role in circular transition by representing
numerous applications (Reichel et al., 2021) and holding the potential
for reducing environmental impacts based on waste generation and raw
material dependency and efficiency (EC, 2018). Circular economy may
also be enabling the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) (Velenturf and Purnell, 2021). Plastic circularity is thus
interlinked with the 2030 Agenda and SDG targets, such as responsible
production and consumption (SDG 12) and prevention of climate change
(SDG 13). Ideally, plastic circularity should contribute to increasing the
resource value of plastic materials, minimising climate impacts,
reducing pollution and littering and ensuring overall resource efficiency
(Geyer et al., 2017). Very little is known, however, about plastic circu­
larity implementation, the requirements for this implementation and the
potential for increasing plastic circularity falling within the circular
economy principles (Karayılan et al., 2021). While circularity metrics

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: malis@dtu.dk (M. Lisiecki).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107072
Received 22 February 2023; Received in revised form 12 May 2023; Accepted 31 May 2023
Available online 10 June 2023
0921-3449/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Lisiecki et al.
and quantitative assessment methods, such as life cycle assessments
(LCAs) (ISO, 2006a; 2006b), do indeed exist, these approaches often
require large amounts of data (Desing et al., 2021). On the other hand,
simple indicators such as recycling rates may not represent the full
complexities of the challenges and barriers associated with related ini­
tiatives (Corona et al., 2019).
An initiative can be understood as a claim, i.e. a suggestion of actions
intended to increase plastic circularity. Borrelle et al. (2020) and Lau
et al. (2020) discussed the effectiveness of strategies in reducing plastic
leakage into the environment according to several scenarios between
2016 and 2040. Even with the implementation of recycling and pre­
vention initiatives, predicted growth in plastic waste exceeded all efforts
to mitigate plastic-induced pollution (Borrelle et al., 2020). The wide
range of possibilities for initiatives to implement circularity has been
acknowledged (Lau et al., 2020), and more than 70% of the world’s
largest companies have committed themselves to reducing plastic
pollution (Diana et al., 2022a). It was recently concluded that the
implementation of "circular innovations" for packaging on a global level
is low (Hafsa et al., 2022). With numerous circular initiatives claiming
importance over others, structured comparisons of potential effects,
dependencies and barriers for implementation are seldom provided
(Babbitt et al., 2018). As such, we may put effort into and trust in the
"wrong" initiatives, thereby losing resources and time in the transition
towards plastic circularity materials (Fellner et al., 2017; Katalin, 2020;
King and Locock, 2022).
The expected benefits of plastic circularity include (i) reducing de­
mand for primary raw materials, (ii) lower environmental impacts, (iii)
less waste generation and (iv) cleaner and safer materials. Several
questions, however, remain: (i) to what extent does an initiative comply
with a fundamental circular economy definition, (ii) are there critical
barriers hindering successful initiative implementation and (iii) will the
initiative contribute to material circularity from a longer-term
perspective? Currently, such insights are fragmented and not system­
atically provided.
This study aims to provide a structured basis for evaluating and
comparing circular economy initiatives with a focus on plastics,
addressing (i) compliance with fundamental circular economy princi­
ples and strategies, (ii) the importance of barriers and implementation
requirements, and the (iii) potential for contribution to long-term ma­
terial circularity. The intention of this research is to offer more clarity
and consistency in the discussion of circular economy initiatives and
thus promote more robust decision-making regarding future proposals
within the field. The following – more specific – objectives are included:
(i) identify relevant initiatives targeting plastic circularity throughout
the entire value chain, (ii) develop a framework for a comparative and
qualitative evaluation of circular economy initiatives, (iii) apply the
framework to the range of selected plastic initiatives and (iv) on this
basis, provide recommendations for improved plastic circularity and
initiative prioritisation.
2. Methodology
2.1. Selection of circular economy initiatives
An extensive review was conducted for the selection of initiatives.
The initiatives were selected based on their (i) potential ability to
improve plastic circularity, (ii) involvement of novel technologies,
recycled material, or new business models, and (iii) targeting of plastic
products (e.g. bottles, pipes, tyres) or specific sectors (e.g. packaging,
textiles, building and construction). Only initiatives available and
described in the public domain were included.
In total, 54 circular economy initiatives suggested for plastic were
extracted from a broad range of literature, i.e. peer-reviewed scientific
literature (14), industry reports and company statements (6), govern­
mental strategies and action plans (3), non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) (2) and public material from other relevant stakeholders such as
2
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 197 (2023) 107072
sector organisations (29). See Table 1 for an overview. The selection
offers an exhaustive, comprehensive list of available initiatives based on
relevance, redundancy and information level to ensure applicability as
illustrative cases (De Smet et al., 2019; EASAC, 2020; ten Brink et al.,
2020; EMF, 2021; Kahlert and Bening, 2022; Werner et al., 2022). We
consider the 54 initiatives appropriate for implementing and demon­
strating the evaluation framework and discussing initiative effective­
ness. The initiatives were classified according to their primary "focus" in
the circular economy value chain, e.g. plastic production and material
feedstok, product use and end-of-life management, and organised ac­
cording to seven overall categories: (i) Design for Circularity, (ii) Plastic
Use, (iii) Increase and Improve Collection, (iv) Increase and Improve
Sorting, (v) Increase and Improve Circularity, (vi) Material Feedstock
Choice and (vii) Design from Circularity. Table 1 provides an overview
of the 54 initiatives by category (refer to Supplementary Materials, SM1,
for details).
2.2. Evaluation framework overview
The study proposes to assess the impact of initiatives before their
full-scale implementation based on requirements and effectiveness ex­
pectations rather than on quantitative indicators for an individual
initiative. As such, the intention was not to achieve a normative score
reflecting the "quality" of an initiative but to facilitate a relative com­
parison across the range of selected initiatives. To do so, a systematic
and qualitative evaluation of the initiatives according to a range of
criteria provides a structured analysis of the initiatives’ impact toward
plastic circularity. The evaluation framework comprises a range of
evaluation criteria (17) organised into three "pillars": (i) compliance
with fundamental circular economy principles (6 criteria), (ii) re­
quirements necessary for the initiative’s implementation (7 criteria) and
(iii) expected contributions to long-term plastic circularity (4 criteria).
For each criterion, a specific evaluation question was formulated (see
the following Section 2.3).
Circular economy compliance represents the first pillar and ad­
dresses the likelihood of compliance with basic circular economy prin­
ciples and objectives, such as those defined by the European Commission
(EC, 2018), e.g. expecting the CE to lead to less waste generation, higher
reuse and recycling rates, lower dependency on fossil resources,
improved valorisation of resources in waste and lower environmental
impacts (UN, 2021). This pillar includes six criteria chosen from the
relevance of the literature to represent the main principles of plastic
circularity as a specific example of the circular economy: Waste Gen­
eration, Fossil Resource Consumption, Waste Collection, Waste Hierar­
chy, Plastic Design and Environmental Impact.
Implementation requirements represent the second pillar and
address the likelihood of initiatives being affected by critical re­
quirements upon implementation. The “maturity” or “readiness” of
waste systems is rarely discussed in the CE, although waste management
practices may represent a potential barrier for new initiatives (Anto­
nopoulos et al., 2021). Material circularity implies that plastic waste is
collected, sorted, reused or recycled into new plastic products as part of
subsequent material cycles (Xiao et al., 2022). Due to plastic value chain
complexities, stakeholders’ willingness or ability to adapt or change
may also be critical for implementation (Bening et al., 2021). We have
selected seven criteria representing different aspects of the imple­
mentation of waste management, especially for plastic: Waste Manage­
ment Compliance, Technology Readiness, Capacity Investment, Value
chain Acceptability, Market Demand, Societal Readiness and
Regulation.
Long-term Circularity Contribution is the third pillar and evalu­
ates the scalability and likelihood of an initiative contributing to “long-
term” plastic circularity. With plastic material circularity, we refer to
strategies increasing the circulation of plastic as material to displace the
use of fossil resources. Potential long-term circularity may be defined as
the share of plastic material being reused or recycled into a new product
M. Lisiecki et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 197 (2023) 107072

Table 1
Overview of all 54 initiatives evaluated in this study, organised according to the following seven categories: Design for Circularity (grey), Plastic Use (red), Increase and
Improve Collection (green), Increase and Improve Sorting (blue), Increase and Improved Circularity (purple), Material Feedstock Choice (yellow) and Design from
Circularity (light grey). ID numbers are used throughout the study. Detailed descriptions of all 54 initiatives are provided in Supplementary Material, Section 1 (SM1,
Table 1).
Category Initiative
Design for Circularity

1 Design guidelines for polystyrene (PS)

2 Design guidelines for polyolefins (PO)
3 Ellen McArthur Foundation (EMF) commitments toward recycled content
4 Light-weighting, plastic packaging size reduction
5 Ban difficult-to-recycle plastic
6 Create new plastics based on polymer chemistry research
7 Phase out dangerous substances according to the Safe and Sustainable Directive
8 Register recycled materials under European chemical legislation (REACH)
Plastic Use
9 Standardise plastic
10 Ban planned obsolescence for plastic devices
11 Develop new service business model for tyres
12 Reduce plastic leakage from bottle caps
13 Ban unnecessary plastic for flexible packaging
14 Ban single-use plastic (SUP) found on beaches
15 Design refill stations for beverages
Increase and Improve Collection
16 Tax ‘’pay-as-you-throw’’ for plastic source separation
17 Extend deposit return systems (DRSs) for juice bottles
18 Private DRSs owned by beverage companies
19 Focus only on PET and PO rigid plastic packaging
20 Extend collection to flexible and trays packaging
21 Separate collection systems for flexible packaging
22 Individual collection points owed by a private company
23 Develop new sorting streams for plastic trays
Increase and Improve Sorting
24 Include currently untapped plastics such as post-industrial plastic film
25 Use chemical markers for selective sorting
26 Use digital watermarks for selective sorting
27 Use radio frequency identification (RFID) on the label
28 Use Blockchain for selective sorting
29 Use AI for selective sorting
30 Develop sorting centres for textiles
31 Use spectral sorting technology for selective sorting
32 Mark packaging with sorting certification
Increase and Improve Circularity
33 Quality sorting criteria to improve recyclability
34 Plastic-to-fuel (PtF) technology
35 Produce biodegradable PEF (PolyEthylene Furanoate) packaging
36 Devise recyclability certification for packaging
37 Develop extended producer responsibility (EPR) for packaging
38 Introduce mandatory recycling content for thermosets
Material Feedstock Choice
39 Up-scale pyrolysis plants
40 Chemical recycling feedstock agreement between stakeholders
41 Introduce a tax on fossil-based plastic production
42 Substitute fossil-based for polylactic acid (PLA) bottles
43 Substitute fossil-based for paper-based bottles
44 Prioritise attribution of secondary recycled material
45 Produce textile fibres from bottles
46 Manufacture pipes with recycled plastic packaging
47 Manufacture furniture with recycled plastic packaging
48 Incorporate recycled packaging in concrete
49 Voluntary minimum recycled content for polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
50 Produce post-industrial recycled polyamide (PA) for textiles
51 Scale-up pyrolysis for tyre recycling
Design from Circularity
52 Design guidelines for the use of recycled plastic from electronic devices
53 Use compatibiliser production of plastic packaging
54 Use compatibiliser production of plastic agricultural films

(Eriksen et al., 2018). Rather than addressing a single loop, however,
this pillar focuses on the potential for enabling multiple loops and
promoting plastic circularity from a longer-term perspective. The ability
of plastic materials to maintain quality and functionality throughout
their lifetime over several loops is essential. We have selected four
critical criteria representing the long-term effects of initiatives: Material
Quality, High-Quality Recycling, Multiple Material Loops and
Scalability.
While an exhaustive literature review in relation to plastic circularity
was outside the scope of this study, an extensive review was carried out
to identify the evaluation criteria. Detailed definitions for all criteria and
evaluation questions are provided in Supplementary Materials (SM2).
We fully acknowledge that these criteria and questions could be defined
in many ways; however, we consider them both relevant and

3
M. Lisiecki et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 197 (2023) 107072

Table 2
Overview of criteria comprising the three pillars and the associated questions applied to evaluate the initiatives. Background information on the selection and
definition of each criterion used for the evaluation is provided in Supplementary Material (SM2).
Criteria How likely will the initiative:

Circular Economy Compliance

Waste Generation Reduce waste generation?
Fossil Resource Consumption Reduce dependency on fossil resources for primary material production?
Waste Collection Increase the amount of waste collected for recycling?
Waste Hierarchy Promote waste materials management at a higher level of the waste hierarchy?
Plastic Design Increase the share of high-quality secondary plastic?
Environmental Impacts Reduce environmental impacts throughout the value chain?
Implementation Requirements
Waste System Compliance Comply with the existing waste management system?
Technology Readiness Be feasible without new technology development across the entire value chain?
Capacity Investment Be feasible without investments for additional infrastructure and capacity?
Value Chain Acceptability Be acceptable for all stakeholders throughout the value chain?
Market Demand Produce secondary materials with a market demand?
Societal Readiness Be implemented without additional end-user education and awareness?
Regulation Be supported by existing regulations?
Long-term Circularity Contributions
Material Quality Contribute to cleaner and safer materials with less contamination?
High-quality Recycling Contribute to increased closed-loop recycling?
Multiple Material Loops Support multiple (recycling or reuse) loops?
Scalability Be scalable and target entire sectors rather than single products?

appropriate for evaluating circular plastic initiatives. Table 2 provides
an overview of the individual criteria and evaluation questions.
2.3. Framework scoring
The scoring is a three-level likelihood approach (1; 0; − 1), repre­
senting an initiative’s likelihood to respond positively to the evaluation
question in Table 2. For example, if an initiative is considered likely to
reduce waste generation (first pillar), the attributed criterion score is
"1′′ . If the effect is unclear or potentially has no effect, the score is "0′′ .
Furthermore, if the initiative is considered counter-productive con­
cerning the criterion, the result is "-1′′ .
The qualitatively scoring was done based on available information
about an initiative relative to the current situation in Europe. Initiative
specifications and information conciseness vary. For most initiatives,
detailed information was unavailable, mainly because many have not
yet been implemented on any scale or are poorly documented. As such,
scoring inevitably is subjective to the authors. As the focus is a relative
comparison between initiatives rather than evaluating the absolute
performance of individual initiative, we find this approach justifiable for
the intended purpose.
For an initiative, i, the criterion scores, s = [1; 0; -1], were sum­
marised across each criterion, j, within each of the three pillars, p. While
each criterion (s) and pillar (p) could be weighted, e.g. through a
stakeholder consultation process, the weights were maintained at unity
in this study. The focus was on the relative comparison between initia­
tives rather than a final rank score. In summary, the final score for a
pillar, Sp, follows:
1∑ i
Spi = wj .sji , for i = 1, …, n and p = 1, 2, 3
n j=0
where p represents the pillar, i represents the initiative evaluated and n
represents the number of criteria within pillar p. As mentioned above,
weight, wj, was defined as "1′′ for all criteria, j. Normalised scores, Sp,
were calculated by dividing by the number of criteria, n, within the pillar
to achieve Sp values between -1 and 1. The detailed equations for each
pillar are provided in Supplementary Material (SM3).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Overview of evaluation scores
Fig. 1 provides an overview of the evaluation scores, Sp, for all three
pillars in all initiatives, numbered according to Table 1. Pillar 1 (Circular
Economy Compliance) scores are plotted along the x-axis, while Pillar 2
scores (Implementation Requirements) are plotted along the y-axis.
Each "bubble" indicates individual initiatives, with the size of the bubble
representing the scores in Pillar 3 (Long-term Circularity Contributions),
i.e. higher scores are illustrated by larger bubbles.
Fig. 1 illustrates that evaluation scores cover almost the entire scale
for Pillars 1 and 2 (vertically and horizontally). This indicates that some
initiatives may be readily implementable, while others potentially
depend on external factors (such as technology, capacity implementa­
tion or new regulation). At the same time, a considerable number of the
initiatives do not appear to comply with basic circular economy prin­
ciples, even though they are often advertised as such. None of the ini­
tiatives was evaluated as fully supporting all CE principles, which
indicates that the suggested CE initiatives may not necessarily provide
the anticipated effects and thereby contribute to the expected transition
– at least not without paying further attention to potential barriers
limiting implementation.
Focusing on the largest bubbles in Fig. 1, indicating the most sig­
nificant effect on long-term circularity, 18 initiatives can be identified.
Fourteen were evaluated as being either neutral or only with a few re­
quirements for implementation, while four were evaluated as likely to
have requirements limiting implementation. Fig. 2 provides an overview
of the detailed scoring for all initiatives. The colour coding follows the
initiative’s likelihood to respond positively (white; +1), neutral (dark
grey; 0) or negatively (black; -1) to the question associated with each
criterion from Table 2. The evaluation outcome is discussed in the
following sections for each pillar (see 3.2–3.4).
3.2. Circular economy compliance
Only a few initiatives were found to address and improve waste
generation, apart from initiatives related to Plastic Use (initiatives
10–11 and 13–15 in Fig. 2), which focused on reusable products and
lifetime extensions, likely contributing to lower plastic waste genera­
tion. For Fossil Resource Consumption, while about half of the initiatives
supported less dependence on fossil resources, the other half was found

4
M. Lisiecki et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 197 (2023) 107072

Fig. 1. Overview of the assessment. Each bubble represents an initiative, and the colour coding gives the initiative category, as in Table 1. The bubbles coordinate to
represent the normalised score obtained after evaluating the Circular Economy Compliance criteria (Pillar 1, x-axis), the Implementation Requirements criteria (Pillar
2, y-axis), and the Long-term Circularity Contributions criteria (Pillar 3, size of the bubbles). Further details regarding scoring normalisation are provided in
Supplementary Materials (SM4.2).

5
M. Lisiecki et al.
Fig. 2. Overall qualitative assessment of the 54 initiatives and the associated scoring from each criterion within the three pillars following the likelihood approach
described in part 2.2: Likely scores 1 (white), neutral likelihood or not possible to assess scores 0 (light grey) and unlikely scores -1 (black). Each row is a criterion;
the colour predominance can be used to analyse the barriers and the levers of plastic circularity implementation. All the justifications regarding the attribution of the
score are detailed in Supplementary Materials (SM4.1.1-SM4.1.3).
unlikely to contribute to lower consumption: most initiatives within
Improved Collection and Improved Circularity (initiatives 16–33) were
unlikely to contribute to lower fossil resource consumption. This was
mainly related to those initiatives focusing on improving system effi­
ciency rather than the material feedstock itself.
Initiatives included in Feedstock Material Choice (41–51) supported
reducing fossil fuel consumption by promoting recycled material and
renewable feedstock to substitute for fossil-based plastics. Most of the
initiatives within Design for Circularity and from Circularity (initiatives
1–8; 52–54) and Feedstock Material Choice (initiatives 41–51) were
found not to improve Waste Collection and management according to
the Waste Hierarchy. This may indicate that plastic design and material
selection initiatives are somewhat "disconnected" from current waste
management practices. As such, they may not have the anticipated effect
without paying attention to the waste management phase.
Most initiatives were found likely to improve the overall manage­
ment of plastic waste by proposing solutions to move plastic from
disposal to recycling rather than from recycling towards reuse or
reduction. Very few initiatives (19 and 34) were found likely to have
detrimental effects on the Waste Hierarchy and Environmental Impact
criteria. However, the high number of initiatives scored as neutral il­
lustrates the lack of information available to evaluate environmental
consequences. This indicates that many initiatives may be poorly
documented or lack consistent evaluations of their environmental
aspects.
Almost none of the initiatives positively covered the six circular
6
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 197 (2023) 107072
economy principles addressed in this evaluation. A notable exception
was Initiative 10, which focused on banning electronic obsolescence,
covering five out of six principles. Initiatives 14 and 15 (banning single-
use plastic and implementing refill stations, respectively) scored posi­
tively on four principles out of six. Most initiatives were evaluated be­
tween -0.5 and 0.5 (Fig. 1), indicating that only one or two criteria
scored positive. Initiatives 19, 34 and 48 scored any criterion of Pillar 1
positively. Focusing only on some plastic types (19), using plastic for
fuel feedstock (34) and using PET as concrete fillers indicate that these
initiatives might not be compatible with our definition of plastic circu­
larity. Overall, this suggests that most initiatives with a technology-
focused concept may have limitations with some circular economy
principles. Only a few initiatives were found likely to contribute to
plastic circularity. Similarly for the SDGs and 2030 Agenda targets,
particularly SDG 12 is relevant with focus on responsible production and
consumption.
3.3. Implementation requirements
Most initiatives within Waste System Compliance were not found
likely to comply with current approaches, particularly those associated
with Feedstock Material Choice (initiatives 39–51) relying on a less
developed waste management system such as textile recycling (50) or
tyre recycling (51), as well as chemical recycling feedstock (39–40).
Similar results were observed for the Increase and Improve Collection
and Sorting initiatives, perhaps due to the focus on creating new waste
M. Lisiecki et al.
streams such as tray packaging (23) or industrial waste (24) and the
creation of new plants for sorting textiles (20). Regarding Technology
Readiness, most initiatives rely on existing technology or do not require
a technological process to be implemented, especially regarding Design
for and from Circularity initiatives (1–5; 52–54). Those relying on
technological readiness are primarily found in the Improve and Increase
Sorting and Circularity categories. This can be explained by the neces­
sity to scale up the initiative to an industrial scale in Europe, such as the
production of biobased-plastic bottles (35), the development of ther­
moset recycling (38) and chemical recycling using pyrolysis (39).
In contrast, Capacity Investment reveals that initiatives may require
investments to change the current plastic value chain to implement
circularity. Investments are required to improve plastic use, with only
one initiative scoring positively (13). Furthermore, two out of nine, none
out of eight and none out of seven initiatives scored positively for
Improve and Increase Collection, Sorting and Circularity, e.g. using a
spectral instrument for sorting (31), intelligent sorting (25–29) or
substituting fossil-based for biobased plastic (42), recycled material
from tray packaging (23) or recycled material for building and con­
struction (49).
More initiatives scored negatively regarding Value Chain Accept­
ability. As mentioned before, initiatives are individual claims to
contribute to plastic circularity. In general, initiatives included in con­
sortiums and global agreements between different actors, such as EMF
global commitments (3) or design guidelines (1–2; 52), are likely more
Fig. 3. Alluvial diagram representing the potential co-dependencies between initiatives included in the seven categories. (right) Positive interactions indicate the
potential reinforcement and enabling of the initiatives in the category; (left) Negative interactions indicate a potential counteraction between initiatives within two
categories. The thickest line shows the cluster of initiatives with the most dependencies on the other. Further details regarding scoring are provided in Supplementary
Materials (SM5.5).
7
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 197 (2023) 107072
welcomed by the value chain and will encounter less disagreement.
Similarly, Plastic Use initiatives, such as refill stations (15) or restricting
unnecessary plastic (13), are unlikely to be more easily integrated
throughout the value chain due to non-willingness on the part of other
stakeholders to apply the change. Initiatives from Improve and Increase
Collection, Sorting and Circularity (16–49) may be subject to rejection
from value chain. For example, recyclers might refuse to accept new
waste streams (19–21), plastic products (22–23) or alternatives to fossil-
based plastics (42–43). A potential competition exists between stake­
holders, primary application (for example packaging) and end market
(for example textile) (44–51).
Initiatives focusing on collecting, sorting, and recycling have no
impact without market demand, which is why these initiatives presented
mixed scores. Those with a negative or a null score invested in immature
markets, for example in Increase and Improve Collection (18–24) and
Feedstock Material Choice (41–48), while others scored positively,
mainly in Design for and from Circularity, thereby strengthening current
market demands, for example within plastic packaging (2–3; 53).
Regarding Societal Readiness, initiatives related to Plastic Use
(10–11; 14–15) and Increased and Improve Collection (16–24) involved
users’ willingness to change their behaviour, in this case, they scored
negatively. Education and awareness campaigns were not necessary for
half of the initiatives.
Overall, 32 of the initiatives were found not to be readily supported
by existing regulations, which, along with directives, often come
M. Lisiecki et al.
without a quantifiable target focus on a specific product type or sector.
As a result, initiatives have been assigned a null or negative score when
unclear whether existing regulations support specific initiatives. On the
contrary, initiatives about packaging are supported more directly,
especially with the recent revision of the Waste Packaging Directive
(EC, 2022), for example a ban on single-use plastics (14), an increase in
the collection of beverage bottles (17) or improvements to the collection
of flexible packaging (21) and plastic trays (23).
3.4. Long-term circularity contributions
For Material Quality (Fig. 2), initiatives focusing on new feedstock or
recycled material did not appear to limit potential contamination. On
the contrary, those improving segregation in the sorting step can be
expected to lower recycled material contamination. Promoting design
guidelines and reducing difficult-to-recycle plastics limit contamination
risks, thereby increasing or maintaining material quality.
Half of the initiatives scored null for the High-quality Recycling
criterion. However, this evaluation was challenging. Most of the initia­
tives involving recycled material used waste feedstock but not from the
same application, for example beverage bottles as filler in concrete (48),
packaging recycled into pipes (46) and furniture (47) or textiles made
from beverage bottles (45). Additionally, most initiatives did not pro­
vide a solution to overcome the challenges of maintaining quality,
except by using compatibilisers (53–54) and developing advanced
recycling approaches claiming virgin quality (39).
As with the examples above (45–48), Material Feedstock Choice
often prevents further recycling in multiple loops. Nevertheless, initia­
tives within Plastic Use generally supported multiple loops and
continued reuse/recycling rather than only single loops. Contradictory
observations were made for the Multiple Material Loop criterion over
consecutive product cycles. Half of the initiatives scoring null did not
report if materials were recycled or reused successively over several
cycles, and most of them involving waste fractions or technologies
scored null for this reason, for example in the Increase and Improve
Collection and Sorting categories (16–30).
As voluntary commitments, initiatives mainly represented niche
applications from single brands rather than entire sectors and regional
markets, except for initiatives backed by larger consortiums (1–3, 22,
52). Nevertheless, some initiatives showed potential for scaling beyond
the initial scope, particularly those included in the Increase and Improve
Collection, Sorting and Circularity categories (17–18; 23–28; 34–35;
38–40). However, as scalability is particularly uncertain, 19 initiatives
scored null, especially in the Feedstock Material Choice group (41–42;
44–50).
3.5. Co-dependency between initiatives
When scoring the initiative, co-pendency became apparent. In­
teractions illustrated in Fig. 3 can be either positive, negative or
consistent, i.e. they have no significant interactions.
Flows represent the interdependencies between initiatives within the
seven categories, signifying the node clusters. The height of a block
represents the number of initiatives in the category. The interaction
evaluation between the included initiatives is detailed in Supplementary
Material (SM6).
It was determined that the initiatives in Design For/From Recycling
influence all the other categories, for example by enabling the uptake of
recycled plastic or by counteracting with innovative technology devel­
opment (mono-material design vs. dissolution recycling). However,
initiatives might present counteracting effects between themselves (e.g.
use of additives in recycled plastic vs limited use of additives). Material
Feedstock Choice initiatives considerably enable or counteract the suc­
cess of initiatives included in Design For and From Circularity, whilst
Plastic Use initiatives seem to counteract mainly with the Increase and
Improve Collection cluster. Reusable products, for example, might
8
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 197 (2023) 107072
decrease the amount of plastic entering the waste management system
(assuming overall constant production). On the contrary, banning spe­
cific plastic products or restricting difficult-to-recycle products may in­
crease plastic circularity. Initiatives setting out to Increase and Improve
Collection, Sorting, and Circularity equally influence the failure or
success of initiative implementation within each other category. For
example, an individual initiative based on a sorting technology may
depend on other initiatives addressing the collection of these plastic
products and might enable relevant end markets. However, these three
categories do not enable the impact of design initiatives. The Feedstock
Material Choice cluster mainly affects the initiatives included in In­
crease and Improve Collection, Sorting and Circularity, which rely on
acceptability from the waste management system and may depend on
the roll-out of innovative waste technologies. For example, the scale-up
of plastic production from renewable feedstock, such as bioplastics, will
be successful in a circularity perspective only when waste collection and
recycling schemes are in place.
3.6. Stakeholder and value chain involvement
Based on the evaluation of and potential co-dependencies between
initiatives, several critical aspects influence the implementation of
plastic circularity initiatives. Stakeholder involvement may be one such
critical enabler or barrier. The shift toward plastic circularity is possible
if changes occur through the entire value chain and with absolute
stakeholder involvement and acceptability. Our evaluation illustrates
potentially different stakeholder viewpoints in terms of accepting ini­
tiatives complying with their interests but not necessarily with others:
producers and manufacturers focus on feedstock for production and
sorting centres, recyclers focus on waste with potential end markets and
regulators prioritise the action required to reach targets. Omitting one or
several circular economy principles may place the burden of re­
sponsibility elsewhere. Furthermore, not all stakeholders will benefit
equally from the transition, which in turn may create barriers or a lack of
motivation to change. Sharing a common vision and a clear direction is
necessary to align stakeholder involvement (Stumpf et al., 2023), whilst
collaboration between stakeholders is essential in order to have more
stringent and impactful initiatives. Our evaluation found that most ini­
tiatives depended on new investments and increased operational costs
(e.g. new sorting technologies, hot washing, cleaning and chemical
recycling,SYSTEMIQ, 2022). Each initiative is naturally associated with
a waste management system that reflects local or regional conditions
and traditions. Aligning EU waste management systems for all Member
States may be difficult to achieve. The study also illustrates the chal­
lenges involved in plastic circularity on a European scale and "harvests"
potential material circularity.
Improving collection, sorting and recycling is pointless without
market pull and demand for recycled materials and reusable products
(Klotz et al., 2022). However, the evaluation emphasised that long-term
circularity may likely face limited availability of secondary materials.
The competition between stakeholders and end markets, visible in this
evaluation, compromises the flexible uptake of recycled plastic, which
should be application-specific and transparent regarding properties and
functionalities (Demets et al., 2021). Finally, the uptake of recycled
plastic and the development of market demand must be incentivised
across a wide range of plastic products and not only packaging.
Citizen involvement is often overlooked. In this regard, the evalua­
tion revealed gaps in awareness and education, thereby indicating a
disconnection between the stakeholders suggesting initiatives and con­
sumers. Establishing educational programs that encourage behavioural
changes and explain initiatives will contribute to plastic circularity, and
changes in consumer habits might lead to increased attention being paid
to waste prevention (Eunomia, 2022).
Despite the existing regulatory strategy for plastic circularity, our
evaluation emphasises apparent gaps in regulation. Only a few EU pol­
icies or initiatives directly target non-packaging plastics (EFA, 2019);
M. Lisiecki et al.
however, the amounts of plastic Europe uses in construction, furniture,
electronics and textiles are undeniably significant. Again, in the absence
of market demands, regulatory targets may be mandatory to initiate
non-packaging plastic circularity.
3.7. Need for impact monitoring
The evaluation clearly illustrated a lack of reliable and transparent
data regarding the implementation and effects of initiatives throughout
the plastic value chain. As there is no sanction if intended impacts are
missed, consistent and quantitative measurements relating to progress,
and the effects of initiatives are thus critical. Being unable to measure
changes to and progress towards regulatory targets highlights the risk of
poor investments and the creation of barriers (Bassi et al., 2021).
Reducing the policy gap and providing better documentation will sup­
port plastic circularity within the circular economy context (Pinyol
Alberich et al., 2023). In addition, (preferably) regulatory measures
should include quantitative metrics that capture the full extent of cir­
cular economy principles. Such metrics must relate to material flows,
product life cycles, business models and consumer behaviour, including
economic, environmental and social changes (Blum et al., 2020). This
may require a standard and an operational definition of what constitutes
a CE (Corona et al., 2019), but it must also include a systematic quan­
titative environmental assessment across various impact categories
(Amadei et al., 2022; Bardow et al., 2022; Meys et al., 2021). This may,
in turn, contribute to effective implementation, thus ensuring continued
trust in plastic circularity and avoiding fake claims and greenwashing.
3.8. Evaluation bias
Relatively similar approaches highlighted the evident need to criti­
cally analyse initiatives. A predominant focus on recycling (Blasiak
et al., 2021) confirmed that companies primarily commit to increasing
recycled or recyclable content. Voluntary initiatives can be assessed
according to plastic-specific narratives and the occurrence of the
initiative in policy (Diana et al., 2022a, 2022b). In 2018, OECD pro­
posed an analysis of the barriers to plastic circularity implementation
and the maturity and feasibility of circular tools that could be used to
overcome them (e.g. recycled content, taxes) (OECD, 2018). The impact
of interventions on closing the plastic circularity gap is assessed through
technology-orientated initiatives using plastic volumes and investment
(Werner et al., 2022, 2021), whilst the need for mechanical and chem­
ical recycling investments to reach recycling targets has been high­
lighted without focusing on barriers. A UK study pointed out the lack of
monitoring data in policies to achieve plastic circularity (GPPC, 2022).
Other studies have identified critical barriers to implementing ini­
tiatives, namely consumer education, waste management acceptability,
waste hierarchy level and lack of policies specific to plastic packaging
innovation (Hafsa et al., 2022). Specifically, beverage bottle circularity
pledges, value chain acceptance and material quality are the main
challenges to attaining plastic circularity (Kahlert and Bening, 2022).
The focus on plastic packaging is prominent, thereby promoting waste
prevention and collaboration. However, the Ellen McArthur Foundation
already revealed that several main stakeholders would miss their com­
mitments about the use of recycled plastic for 2025 (EMF, 2022).
This study has covered a wide range of aspects relating to plastic
circularity, including the ability to evaluate impacts, engage stake­
holders and identify linkages between individual initiatives. The pro­
posed framework is designed to be flexible in applying and
accommodating different "levels" of data, plastic products and waste
fractions and other geographical scopes.
4. Conclusion
Despite increasing attention being paid to the CE, we found a lack of
holistic approaches to identify challenges and solutions regarding plastic
9
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 197 (2023) 107072
circularity. The framework herein offers a structured process for iden­
tifying such critical barriers, given the fundamental principles of the CE.
To illustrate applicability, 54 initiatives addressing plastic circularity
were evaluated. For the initiative to work at scale, barriers limiting
implementation, such as financial, organisational, technology-based,
social, policy-related, market-based and social obstacles, must be over­
come. Very few initiatives were found to be readily implementable and
without any shortcomings or changes. Notable exceptions, however,
were those focusing on: i) banning problematic plastic from recycling, ii)
standardising plastic formulations, iii) increasing product lifetimes, iv)
certifying the recyclability of products and v) providing guidelines for
circularity. Very few initiatives were disclosed at a level of detail that
allowed for a quantitative assessment of full-scale impacts. Most focused
on recycling, with considerably less attention given to changes in plastic
production, consumption and waste prevention. Analysing enablers and
barriers in a wide range of plastic circularity initiatives helps track
progress towards plastic circularity. The framework described in this
study offers a basis for assessing and prioritising future initiatives, thus
enabling more significant impacts and transparency in the transition
towards plastic circularity.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
M. Lisiecki: Writing – original draft, Data curation, Methodology,
Visualization. A. Damgaard: Conceptualization, Data curation, Visual­
ization. K. Ragaert: Writing – review & editing. T.F. Astrup: Concep­
tualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project
administration, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
I have shared the information anf the justification in the supple­
mentary material
Acknowledgements
This research received funding via the C-PlaNeT (Circular Plastics
Network for Training) project via the European Union’s Horizon 2020
research and innovation program under Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant
agreement No.859885. The authors acknowledge the support they
received from 20 experts within plastic circularity in the context of the
C-PlaNeT project to assess the framework criteria and initiative scoring
in this study.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107072.
References
Amadei, A.M., Sanyé-Mengual, E., Sala, S., 2022. Modeling the EU plastic footprint:
exploring data sources and littering potential. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 178, 106086
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106086.
Andreasi Bassi, S., Tonini, D., Ekvall, T., Astrup, T.F., 2021. A life cycle assessment
framework for large-scale changes in material circularity. Waste Manage. 135,
360–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.09.018.
Antonopoulos, I., Faraca, G., Tonini, D., 2021. Recycling of post-consumer plastic
packaging waste in EU: process efficiencies, material flows, and barriers. Waste
Manage. 126, 694–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.04.002.
M. Lisiecki et al.
Babbitt, C.W., Gaustad, G., Fisher, A., Chen, W.-Q., Liu, G., 2018. Closing the loop on
circular economy research: from theory to practice and back again. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 135, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.012. Sustainable
Resource Management and the Circular Economy.
Bardow, A., Bachmann, M., Zibunas, C., Hartmann, J., Tulus, V., Suh, S., Guillén-
Gosálbez, G., 2022. Towards circular plastics within planetary boundaries (preprint).
In Review. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1788256/v1.
Bening, C.R., Pruess, J.T., Blum, N.U., 2021. Towards a circular plastics economy:
interacting barriers and contested solutions for flexible packaging recycling.
J. Clean. Prod. 302, 126966 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126966.
Blasiak, R., Leander, E., Jouffray, J.-B., Virdin, J., 2021. Corporations and plastic
pollution: trends in reporting. Sustain. Futures 3, 100061. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.sftr.2021.100061.
Blum, N.U., Haupt, M., Bening, C.R., 2020. Why "Circular" doesn’t always mean
sustainable. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 162, 105042. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.1050
42.
Bocken, N.M.P., Olivetti, E.A., Cullen, J.M., Potting, J., Lifset, R., 2017. Taking the
circularity to the next level: a special issue on the circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 21,
476–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12606.
Borrelle, S.B., Ringma, J., Law, K.L., Monnahan, C.C., Lebreton, L., McGivern, A.,
Murphy, E., Jambeck, J., Leonard, G.H., Hilleary, M.A., Eriksen, M., Possingham, H.
P., Frond, H.D., Gerber, L.R., Polidoro, B., Tahir, A., Bernard, M., Mallos, N.,
Barnes, M., Rochman, C.M., 2020. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts
to mitigate plastic pollution. Science 369, 1515–1518. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.aba3656.
Borrello, M., Pascucci, S., Cembalo, L., 2020. Three propositions to unify circular
economy research: a review. Sustainability 12, 4069. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12104069.
Corona, B., Shen, L., Reike, D., Rosales Carreón, J., Worrell, E., 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.2019.104498.
de Oliveira, C.T., Dantas, T.E.T., Soares, S.R., 2021. Nano and micro level circular
economy indicators: assisting decision-makers in circularity assessments. Sustain.
Prod. Consump. 26, 455–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.11.024.
De Smet, M., Linder, M., Koopmans, R., Doorsselaer, K.van, Velis, C., De Wilde, B.,
Ritschkoff, A.-C., Crippa, M., Leyssens, J., Wagner, M., Muncke, J., 2019. A circular
economy for plastics: insights from research and innovation to inform policy and
funding decisions. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European
Commission).
Demets, R., Van Kets, K., Huysveld, S., Dewulf, J., De Meester, S., Ragaert, K., 2021.
Addressing the complex challenge of understanding and quantifying substitutability
for recycled plastics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 174, 105826 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105826.
Desing, H., Braun, G., Hischier, R., 2021. Resource pressure – a circular design method.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 164, 105179 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2020.105179.
Diana, Z., Reilly, K., Karasik, R., Vegh, T., Wang, Y., Wong, Z., Dunn, L., Blasiak, R.,
Dunphy-Daly, M.M., Rittschof, D., Vermeer, D., Pickle, A., Virdin, J., 2022a.
Voluntary commitments made by the world’s largest companies focus on recycling
and packaging over other actions to address the plastics crisis. One Earth 5,
1286–1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.10.008.
Diana, Z., Vegh, T., Karasik, R., Bering, J., DLlano Caldas, J., Pickle, A., Rittschof, D.,
Lau, W., Virdin, J., 2022b. The evolving global plastics policy landscape: an
inventory and effectiveness review. Environ. Sci. Policy 134, 34–45. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envsci.2022.03.028.
dos Santos Gonçalves, P.V., Campos, L.M.S., 2022. A systemic review for measuring
circular economy with multi-criteria methods. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29,
31597–31611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18580-w.
EASAC, 2020. Packaging plastics in the circular economy. EASAC - Science Advice for the
Benefit of Europe EASAC policy report 39, Packaging plastics in the circular
economy | EASAC - Science Advice for the Benefit of Europe.
EC, 2022. Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council on
packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and
Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC, EUR-Lex -
52022PC0677 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu).
EC, 2020. A New Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and More Competitive
Europe. A new Circular Economy Action Plan (europa.eu).
EC, 2019. Communication from the commission, COM(2019) 640 final: the European
Green Deal, Communication COM/2019/640: the European Green Deal | Knowledge
for policy (europa.eu).
EC, 2018. A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy (No. COM/2018/028
final), EUR-Lex - 52018DC0028 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu).
EEA, 2019. Preventing plastic waste in Europe — European Environment Agency, EEA
Report No 02/2019, ISBN 978‑92‑9480‑194‑4, doi:10.2800/096909.
EMF, 2022. The Global Commitment 2022, Progress Report. https://ellenmacarthurfo
undation.org/global-commitment-2022/resources.
EMF, 2021. Signatory reports 2021 Global Commitment report on plastic packaging. htt
ps://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/global-commitment/signatory-reports.
Eriksen, M.K., Pivnenko, K., Olsson, M.E., Astrup, T.F., 2018. Contamination in plastic
recycling: influence of metals on the quality of reprocessed plastic. Waste Manage.
79, 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.08.007.
Eunomia, 2022. Plastic Pollution Prevention, Final Report- The Impact of Beverage
Brand Commitments for Recycled Content On the Flow of Plastic Bottles Into Aquatic
Environments. Oceana.
10
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 197 (2023) 107072
Fellner, J., Lederer, J., Scharff, C., Laner, D., 2017. Present potentials and limitations of a
circular economy with respect to primary raw material demand. J. Ind. Ecol. 21,
494–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12582.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The Circular Economy
– A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 757–768. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever
made. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700782 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
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. Towards Post Fossil Carbon Societies: Regenerative and Preventative Eco-
Industrial Development 114, 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007.
GPPC, 2022. Global Policy Review Report. Global Plastics Policy Centre A global review
of plastics policies to support improved decision making and public accountability.
Global Policy Review Report - Global Plastics Policy Centre.
Hafsa, F., Dooley, K.J., Basile, G., Buch, R., 2022. A typology and assessment of
innovations for circular plastic packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 133313 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133313.
Huysman, S., De Schaepmeester, J., Ragaert, K., Dewulf, J., De Meester, S., 2017.
Performance indicators for a circular economy: a case study on post-industrial plastic
waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 120, 46–54. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.013..
ISO 14040, 2006. International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 14044, 2006. Switzerland International Organization for Standardization.
Kahlert, S., Bening, C.R., 2022. Why pledges alone will not get plastics recycled:
comparing recyclate production and anticipated demand. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
181, 106279 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106279.
Kamp Albæk, J., Shahbazi, S., McAloone, T.C., Pigosso, D.C.A., 2020. Circularity
evaluation of alternative concepts during early product design and development.
Sustainability 12, 9353. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229353.
Karayılan, S., Yılmaz, Ö., Uysal, Ç., Naneci, S., 2021. Prospective evaluation of circular
economy practices within plastic packaging value chain through optimization of life
cycle impacts and circularity. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 173, 105691 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105691.
Katalin, E.-D., 2020. The importance of circular economy (CE) and its effect on the
plastic packaging supply market. Európai Tükör 23, 59–75. https://doi.org/
10.32559/et.2020.4.5.
King, S., Locock, K.E.S., 2022. A circular economy framework for plastics: a semi-
systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 364, 132503 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2022.132503.
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.2017.09.005.
Klotz, M., Haupt, M., Hellweg, S., 2022. Limited utilization options for secondary plastics
may restrict their circularity. Waste Manage. 141, 251–270. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2022.01.002.
Kristensen, H.S., Mosgaard, M.A., 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.2019.118531.
Lau, W.W.Y., Shiran, Y., Bailey, R.M., Cook, E., Stuchtey, M.R., Koskella, J., Velis, C.A.,
Godfrey, L., Boucher, J., Murphy, M.B., Thompson, R.C., Jankowska, E., Castillo, A.,
Pilditch, T.D., Dixon, B., Koerselman, L., Kosior, E., Favoino, E., Gutberlet, J.,
Baulch, S., Atreya, M.E., Fischer, D., He, K.K., Petit, M.M., Sumaila, U.R., Neil, E.,
Bernhofen, M.V., Lawrence, K., Palardy, J.E., 2020. Evaluating scenarios toward zero
plastic pollution. Science 369, 1455–1461. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
aba9475.
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.2015.12.042.
Meys, R., Kätelhön, A., Bachmann, M., Winter, B., Zibunas, C., Suh, S., Bardow, A., 2021.
Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emission plastics by a circular carbon economy.
Science 374, 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg9853.
Moraga, G., Huysveld, S., Mathieux, F., Blengini, G.A., Alaerts, L., Van Acker, K., de
Meester, S., Dewulf, J., 2019. Circular economy indicators: what do they measure?
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 146, 452–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2019.03.045.
Niero, M., Kalbar, P.P., 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.2018.10.002.
OECD, 2018. Improving Markets for Recycled Plastics: Trends. Prospects and Policy
Responses Intervention Mapping. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301016-9-en.
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.2018.10.357.
Pinyol Alberich, J., Pansera, M., Hartley, S., 2023. Understanding the EU’s circular
economy policies through futures of circularity. J. Clean. Prod. 385, 135723 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135723.
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. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling2010006.
Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., Cluzel, F., Kendall, A., 2019. A taxonomy of circular
economy indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 207, 542–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.10.014.
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.2019.05.019.
M. Lisiecki et al.
Sitadewi, D., Yudoko, G., Okdinawati, L., 2021. Bibliographic mapping of post-consumer
plastic waste based on hierarchical circular principles across the system perspective.
Heliyon 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07154 e07154.
Stumpf, L., Schöggl, J.-P., Baumgartner, R.J., 2023. Circular plastics packaging –
Prioritizing resources and capabilities along the supply chain. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Change 188, 122261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122261.
SYSTEMIQ, 2022. ReShaping plastics: pathways to a circular, climate neutral plastics
system in Europe, SYSTEMIQ reshaping plastics • plastics Europe.
ten Brink, P., Schweitzer, J.-P., Emma, W., Galgani, F., De Smet, M., Leslie, H., Galgani,
F., 2020. T20 Task Force Circular Economy: circular economy measures to keep
plastics and their value in the economy, avoid waste and reduce marine litter The
2030 Agenda Climate&Finance Trade&Investment, 12. http://www.g20-insights.org
/policy_briefs/circular-economy-measures-keep-plastics-value-economy-avoid-w
aste-reduce-marine-litter/.
UN, 2021. End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument.
UNEA resolution 5/14 - UNEP/PP/INC.1/INF/1, https://wedocs.unep.org
/20.500.11822/40597.
11
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 197 (2023) 107072
Velenturf, A.M., Purnell, P., 2021. Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustain.
Prod. Consump. 27 (ISSN 2352-5509), 1437–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
spc.2021.02.018. VolumePages.
Werner, M., Narayanan, A., Rabenschlag, O., Nagarajan, P., Saboo, R., Banatao, R.,
Stefan, M., Zilnik, D., Wong, T., Meza, M., 2022. Closing the plastics circularity gap
full report AFARA&IHS markit. https://www.gstatic.com/gumdrop/sustainability/
closing-plastics-gap-full-report.pdf.
Werner, M., Pratibha, N., Raina, S., Olivier, R., Adi, N., Rey, B., Stefan, M., Dan, Z.,
Tiffany, W., 2021. Closing the plastics circularity gap : executive summary. google,
closed loop partners, GreenBlue, and AFARA 19. https://www.gstatic.com/gumdro
p/sustainability/google-closing-circularity-gap.pdf.
Xiao, Z., Pramanik, A., Basak, A.K., Prakash, C., Shankar, S., 2022. Material recovery and
recycling of waste tyres-A review. Clean. Mater. 100115 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
clema.2022.100115.