Abstract
In the context of the Circular Economy (CE), quality is one of the most widely used keywords, but generally perceived as an ambiguous term without further definition or explanation. The present paper analyzes the use of the term product quality in the context of the CE through a systematic literature review including 132 peer-reviewed journal articles. The results reveal that the term quality, although not always explicitly defined, is associated with a variety of topics, namely market value, customer perspective, functionality, technical attributes, longevity, R-strategies and design, and environmental aspects. The aforementioned topics are used in different application contexts and partly show reciprocal relationships amongst each other. They further refer to the three sustainability perspectives (environmental, economic and social). The quantification of quality is observed to be rather limited and mainly based on assumptions. When it is quantified, technical properties, functionality and longevity are most frequently mentioned aspects, which are used within circularity or environmental impact assessment. While acknowledging the limitations arising from the scope of the included studies, which may be influenced by the keywords chosen, the review revealed that quality in the CE literature is complex and ambiguous. Therefore, for future research, we recommend authors to clearly define quality and its characteristics in the context of their respective research. By doing so, a better interpretation and comparability of the results can be achieved.
Graphical Abstract
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The transition of the current linear economy to a Circular Economy (CE) is a major step towards sustainability and long-term industrial competitiveness [1]. The CE concept aims at avoiding waste generation by keeping products and materials in the loop as long as possible, while using primarily regenerative resources and fostering restorative use of non-renewable resources [2]. Among other so-called R-strategies for the circulation of materials [3], recycling plays a central role in the CE concept and recycled materials are expected to comply with high quality requirements [1].
Nowadays, downcycling, i.e., the conversion of materials into materials of inferior quality or functionality [2], also referred to as “imperfection (…) in the product and material cycles” [4], is considered to be a common phenomenon [3]. However, such quality degradation constitutes a limiting factor to circularity [5]. Despite the seemingly common understanding of the term downcycling, the respective classification of real-world examples evokes controversy among experts [4]. Recycling of construction and demolition waste in road construction, for example, is partly considered as a valuable opportunity for waste reduction [6], whereas being described as undesired downcycling by Di Maria et al. [7]. This controversy makes it particularly interesting to further examine the term product and material quality. The latter is omnipresent in CE literature but at the same time difficult to define in a universal way [4]. Even though the term quality is frequently used in official regulations, e.g., in the European Circular Economy Action Plan [1], regulators do not explicitly define it in the CE context [8, 9].
In scientific literature, Helbig et al. [4] indicated a multitude of perspectives entering into the definition of product and material quality when defining downcycling. In one of the most relevant and current reviews tackling the quality definition, Tonini et al. [10] analyzed recycling quality mainly focusing on the technical perspective. Furthermore, Roosen et al. [11] introduced an operational framework for quantifying recycling quality encompassing three dimensions: displacement potential of virgin material, lifetime of stock in use and environmental impact. The present paper aimed to take a step forward by identifying quality definitions and related terms at a micro level in CE literature following a systematic approach. The focus in this regard is not on end-of-life (EoL) or recycling, but on all quality contexts within the CE.
Micro level assessment can be used for products, companies, consumers [12, 13], within this paper, we refer to micro level as product/material level, and throughout this paper we use the term product or material quality to indicate that the focus is on the micro level. It should be noted that the term ‘material and product quality’ in this paper covers primary material that is used for further production, secondary material that is available for further production after recycling, and any product that is either ready for the customer or any intermediate product ready for further production steps. However, in the analysis of the quality term, we did not specifically distinguish between products and materials.
The present article is structured as follows: Sect. 2 presents an overview of current scientific CE literature and briefly summarizes available quality definitions. Subsequently, Sect. 3 describes the method applied for answering the research questions, namely a systematic literature review (SLR) enabling a comprehensive overview to reflect the state of knowledge. The results of the review are presented and discussed in Sect. 4. Finally, a conclusion is drawn in Sect. 5.
Background
CE research includes a variety of disciplines, thereof most frequently industrial ecology, production economics, operations research and waste management [14, 15]. Due to the novelty of the CE concept and its interconnections to other concepts, a variety of definitions exists. Nobre and Tavares [16] provided the following holistic definition of CE:
“Circular Economy is an economic system that targets zero waste and pollution throughout materials lifecycles, from environment extraction to industrial transformation, and to final consumers, applying to all involved ecosystems. Upon its lifetime end, materials return to either an industrial process or, in the case of a treated organic residual, safely back to the environment as in a natural regenerating cycle. It operates creating value at the macro, meso and micro levels and exploits to the fullest the sustainability nested concept. Used energy sources are clean and renewable. Resources use and consumption are efficient. Government agencies and responsible consumers play an active role in ensuring correct system long-term operation.” (p.10).
Another widely accepted definition of CE is provided by Kirchherr et al. [17], who defined CE as “an economic system that replaces the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes. It operates at the micro level (products, companies, consumers), meso level (eco-industrial parks) and macro level (city, region, nation and beyond), with the aim to accomplish sustainable development, thus simultaneously creating environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity, to the benefit of current and future generations. It is enabled by novel business models and responsible consumers.” (p.229). In a further review, Kirchherr et al. [18] evaluated the CE literature again and compared the outcomes with the previous review [17]. The authors concluded that the understanding of CE is more consolidated and differentiated. For example, sustainable development and CE enablers, which were rarely mentioned in the previous review, have been more strongly integrated into the CE definition [18].
However, the concept of CE and its sub-concepts are still being further developed [4]. Scientific literature already contains a multitude of literature review articles.Footnote 1 The majority of these reviews focuses on specific application cases or industries, only few articles tackle overarching topics such as the nexus between CE and sustainability [19,20,21], CE indicators and assessment methods [22, 23] and business models [24,25,26,27,28] or the concept itself, and its evolutions and approaches [17, 29,30,31,32]. However, the quality aspect and its role in CE have rarely been studied. One of the remarkable studies that becomes relevant in the context of the quality topic in CE is the study by Helbig et al. [4], which deals with the terminology of downcycling. The authors pointed out the lack of a definition of downcycling, which is generally associated with quality, and proposed the following definition: “Downcycling is the phenomenon of quality reduction of materials reprocessed from waste relative to their original quality, where waste means any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard. Downcycled materials count as recycled materials. One can distinguish between thermodynamic, functional, and economic downcycling.” (p. 1168). While doing that the authors also identified four main causes for downcycling, namely: dilution, contamination, lack of demand and design-induced [4]. In addition, the authors mentioned that the thermodynamic effort of recycling, the functional use of secondary materials and the economic value of materials can be used to quantify CE progress. However, the lack of data, hampering quantification, is also mentioned as an obstacle. Besides Helbig et al. [4] who mainly focused on the downcycling terminology, Tonini et al. [10] identified main parameters that were used for quality of recycling from a technical point of view. The authors emphasize the importance of taking the technical properties of the recyclate into account, as they have an impact on the area of application and consequently on functionality. This becomes especially important within CE transition, as functionality is strongly linked to substitution potential, which is widely used in the environmental impact assessment of recycling systems. There are some studies that consider the quality aspect in LCA [7, 33, 34], however, the application of a wide range of approaches without transparent documentation and justification has also been reported, which can lead to misinterpretation of LCA results [35]. At this point, the framework proposed by Vadenbo et al. [36] is a good starting point for substitution modeling within LCA based on two main aspects: market-based or technical functionality. However, further research is needed to investigate the link between technical functionality and product displacement in market-based approaches and uncertainty consideration. Furthermore, the study by Vadenbo et al. [36] serves more as a reporting framework while the quantification of substitution for different product groups requires the consideration of different aspects. With regard to the quantification of quality, the study by Roosen et al. [11] is noteworthy, in which a framework for the quantification of recycling quality is proposed. This study is an essential step towards a systematic and transparent approach to recycling quality quantification, building upon the framework proposed by Vadenbo et al. [36]. The authors proposed a comprehensive approach that includes in-use stock lifetime, environmental impact and virgin displacement potential as the main elements for quantifying recycling quality, where the potential for virgin material displacement is calculated as a function of technical suitability for substitution, end-of-life recycling rate and market weight, as well as taking into account economic boundary conditions [11].
Even though the quality topic within CE literature is getting more and more attention, to our knowledge, there have not been any articles giving an overview on the contexts that quality is used within CE literature. Thus, the present article takes a comprehensive approach analyzing the quality term in detail by reviewing in which contexts and term the quality is used within CE literature.
On the political or regulatory level, quality standards were on the one hand mentioned as a driving force for CE, while on the other hand, lacking knowledge of product and material quality is still mentioned as an obstacle to CE [1]. Nevertheless, CE regulations do not provide a distinct quality definition [37]. Outside the CE context, a quality definition is, for instance, provided in the quality management systems standard DIN EN ISO 9000:2015 [38], in which a general definition as “degree to which a set of inherent characteristics of an object fulfils the requirements” is given. A broad range of potentially relevant criteria for quality evaluation becomes evident when reading the definition of characteristics, such as “distinguishing feature(s)”, which are divided into six groups in DIN EN ISO 9000:2015 [38]. Besides the general quality definition, DIN EN ISO 9000:2015 [38] also provides the following quality definition at product and service level: “[…] The quality of an organization’s products and services is determined by the ability to satisfy customers and the intended or unintended impact on relevant parties. The quality of products and services includes not only their intended function and performance but also their perceived value and benefit to the customer.”. The latter definition indicates the importance of the social perspective within the quality definition as well as an interconnection between quality and value.
As previously mentioned, CE is a holistic concept that encompasses different dimensions (environmental, economic and social) at different levels (micro, meso and macro). Within the CE context, the term “quality” is often used, but is still a vague term that is rarely defined.
The present review thus aims at further investigating the quality term in the CE context following an SLR approach. More precisely, we addressed the following research questions (RQ):
RQ1: What is the role and definition of product and material quality (and its development throughout the product life cycle) in current scientific CE literature?
RQ2: How is quality considered in CE indicators on a micro level?
Method
A literature review aims at critically evaluating existing documents on a specific topic [39]. In order to identify, evaluate and synthesize [40] the existing CE literature with regard to the research question outlined earlier in Sect. 1, a SLR was performed. Such review is characterized by its systematic, explicit, and reproducible approach and may be applied for describing and explaining current knowledge for professional practice or identifying the research gaps [40, 41]. SLRs are highly relevant and beneficial as they capture all relevant literature related to the research questions addressed and are conducted on the basis of a predefined protocol with explicit selection and rejection criteria. In this way, the completeness and fairness of the review is maximized, while the bias of the review is minimized [41].
The SLR process was performed considering insights from Fink [40] and Kitchenham [41], and for the reporting of selection process, PRISMA statement [42] was taken as reference. In the first step, the research questions were formulated which were previously mentioned in the Introduction. During the early-stage selection phase of the present SLR, a preliminary review on the literature reviews focusing on CE was performed. The aim of this preliminary review was not only to ensure the uniqueness of the planned SLR but also to provide an overview of current reviews in the CE context as well as their respective methodologies, such as search strategies and selected literature databases.
For reporting the review, PRISMA guideline for reporting systematic reviews [42] is taken as reference. Prior to the review, a research protocol was prepared, and all relevant information are summarized according to [42], in the following subsection.
Search Strategy and Selection Process
The article selection process was performed in four steps: identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion, and an overview of the SLR process is presented in Fig. 1. The steps for article identification are described in Section Database and Keywords Selection, whereas screening, eligibility and inclusion are explained in more detail in Section Article Selection Process..
Database and Keywords Selection
The process of searching the literature includes the selection of the bibliographic database as well as the search terms [40]. The databases were selected by means of the overview of current reviews on CE and preliminary search trials conducted with different literature databases. Scopus and Web of Science were selected as they were found to be the two main databases covering the largest proportion of the literature, meaning that they contain the biggest number of articles relevant to the field, and are the two most frequently used databases identified in our preliminary review mentioned above.
The keyword selection was based on a preliminary search where various combinations of keywords were tested to find the optimum search string that covers the relevant articles while filtering out the articles with a completely different field of research. First, three main core topics were determined: CE, recycling, and quality. Recycling was selected as a core topic, as the focus of this study is material/product level quality and it seemed to be primarily discussed in recycling context. Furthermore, the preliminary search showed that including these keywords helped to significantly reduce the amount of non-relevant articles without CE focus, e.g., related to medicine and physics. In order to include other R-strategies, open-loop and closed-loop were also added. As CE is the core topic, it was decided to include this term in the title search. However, regarding recycling and quality, the search strings were rather entered in the topic (title or abstract or keywords) of the articles. Considering the connection between quality and value outlined in the quality definition in DIN EN ISO 9000:2015 [38], it was decided to include value as a keyword under the quality search string. To ensure the reliability of the included manuscripts, the scope was restricted to peer-reviewed journal articles [43] written in English. The search string and filtering criteria that were used are shown in Fig. 1.
Article Selection Process
In order to enhance reliability, all steps for filtering and synthesizing articles were conducted by two researchers according to the research protocol that was prepared in advance to reduce the bias and increase the reliability of the study [40, 44]. A total of 1062 articles were extracted from the selected databases after the search carried out on 22 September 2021. The data is imported to Citavi software for further screening and two reviewers carried out the article selection independently of each other, and afterwards, the results were compared and discussed.
After removing duplicates, 634 articles were filtered based on their title, and then the articles that are out of the scope of the topic were excluded (n = 61). In the second level filtering, 573 articles were assessed based on their abstract, and the ones that did not mention quality, value, business model or CE measures were excluded (n = 280). In the third level, the articles that used quality or value without giving any explanation or its role within CE were excluded through the full-text screening (n = 157). After the exclusion of 4 further articles, due to a lack of full text availability, 132 articles were finally selected for further analysis.
Data Extraction and Collection
For the data collection, two researchers identified the terms and contexts observed in the selected papers separately and then discussed. Similar categories are merged together to provide a concise and clear overview, such as R-strategies and design. For data extraction, the software Citavi is mainly used, which allows to create categories, take notes and other relevant functions to create a clear structure for the terms and contexts identified in the studies under review. In addition, Excel is used as a supporting tool to export the created overview, which forms the basis for the results presentation.
Results and Discussion
A bibliometric analysis was first conducted to capture the linkages between the selected literature by using VOSviewer - version 1.6.19 [45]. Following this, a content analysis of the selected literature was performed including a detailed overview on how quality was used or defined in the CE context.
In Fig. 2, a distribution overview on the publication year of the selected articles is presented. Even though no filter on the article publication year was set during the selection process, 2014 constitutes the first year of relevant publications. The majority of articles were published between 2019 (n = 29) and 2021 (n = 44).
Bibliometric Analysis
In VOSviewer, three different analyses were selected for the present review, namely document-level citation, author keyword co-occurrence and journal co-occurrence analysis. The document-level citation analysis represents the citation relationship between selected articles. An overview is shown in Fig. 3, in which the lines indicate a citation between the articles. Since the remaining articles (n = 64) had no connection to other selected articles in terms of citation, i.e. were neither cited by any of the selected article nor cited any other selected articles, only 70 articles are covered in the overview. Bocken et al. [46], Linder et al. [47], Reike et al. [3] and Rosa et al. [48] were observed to have the most connections with selected articles.
In Fig. 4, an author keyword co-occurrence analysis is visualized covering the keywords that were mentioned at least 3 times. The most mentioned keywords observed to be circular economy (n = 92), recycling (n = 30), and sustainability (n = 17).
In addition, a journal co-occurrence analysis was performed, including journals in which minimum two of the selected articles were published. As shown in Fig. 5, the majority of the articles were published in the Journal of Cleaner Production (n = 26), followed by Resources, Conservation and Recycling (n = 16) and Sustainability (n = 16).
Content Analysis
Terms Associated with Quality
The findings during the content analysis were grouped into several superordinate themes, in which important streams of information were bundled together. Figure 6 provides an overview of the topics and terms, illustrating their main relationships and interdependencies. Life cycle thinking and the consideration of all three sustainability perspectives as well as standardization were found to be overarching ideas in relation to product quality and value in the context of CE. These ideas are considered inherent to the superordinate topics identified.
From the literature review, some key terms were observed to be widely used in quality definition or context within CE. Within these key terms, technical attributes, longevity, R-strategies and design as well as environmental aspects were identified as characteristics of material quality. At the same time, all these characteristics are observed to influence the perceived product quality and functionality in the CE context. Besides functionality, market value respectively a market existence characterizes products [49, 50]. Market value or economic value was considered and applied as a component or indicator [51,52,53] of product or material quality, besides functional [12] or physical parameters [54]. Vice versa, product quality influences product value e.g., through technical attributes [55,56,57]. It should be noted that a clear distinction between the terms that are presented in Fig. 6 is neither realistic nor logical, as they have a direct or indirect influence on each other. Therefore, the overview in Fig. 6 rather serves as an orientation to the reader and should be interpreted carefully, as it shows the key terms and the most important relationships observed in the present review.
The majority of authors associated quality with more than one key term, which are shown in Fig. 6. We also observed that R-strategies and design is the most frequently used key term when referring to quality; however, usually no clear definition is given. When it comes to quantifying quality, technical properties, functionality and longevity are the most commonly used parameters. In addition, attempts to quantify quality are mainly observed in the assessment of environmental impact or CE potential. Each term, its meaning and role in connection to product and material quality and its use in the reviewed literature is explained in detail in the following subsection.
Market Value
Product Value and Product Price
The term value (creation) is often used in an economic, market-oriented context [58,59,60, 53, 61]. Baena-Moreno et al. [62] introduced the term ‘commercial quality’ influenced by physical characteristics which emphasizes the relationship between product quality and market value.
In a theory-based approach referring to classical economic literature e.g. Hayek [63]’s idea of prices as communication systems for demand and supply in a market, Linder et al. [47] highlighted the role of the market price as information carriers, e.g., regarding relative scarcity changes. However, potential market failure such as monopolies, regulatory measures, lacking externality inclusions [47] or the absence of a functioning market must be considered as a limitation when expressing product value through market prices [47, 51, 54]. On the other hand, market prices may internalize (functional) product features that are difficult to quantify independently [56], making product values exceed the sum of raw material values [64]. The latter shows the close connection from market value to the social value dimension, i.e. in this case the customer perspective.
In CE literature, product or material value often referred to market prices at different life cycle stages [65,66,67, 52, 68,69,70,71,72] or costs respectively combined perspectives aggregated as value added or profit [73, 47, 74,75,76,77] or in life cycle costing (LCC) [78]. Timing plays a central role in valuation and gains specific importance in CE context with multiple or extended use cycles for product and materials [49, 78]. The net present value (NPV), which acknowledges the time-value of money concept, hence arises also within different CE indicators or valuation contexts [79,80,81,82, 49]. An example for this is the Circular NPV proposed by Rodrigo-González et al. [82], an approach involving the aggregation of the NPVs of different parts and life cycles of a product to a total product value.
Due to its quality indicating function outlined earlier, market value was also used for allocation and substitution in LCA [83]. Similar approaches could be found in different CE indicators covering economic product value [56], such as the Circular Economy Index (CEI) developed by Di Maio et al. [84].
It should be noted that other value dimensions such as environmental, social or consumer-oriented values also play an important role in CE [85, 86]. These value dimensions will be further discussed in the following sections.
Following the CE definitions outlined in the Background Section , it is important to aggregate market value with environmental and societal value components to integrate externalities to obtain a holistic CE perspective. Examples of such combinations of value were observed in the context of eco-efficiency calculations, e.g., by Zhou et al. [87] with reference to DIN EN ISO 14045:2012 [88] or in the Eco Cost Value Ratio combining market value and eco-costs [89]. In the same vein, Thakker and Bakshi [90] employed an efficiency factor relating output market value to cost to society. Combined assessment approaches that aim to cover all levels of the sustainability dimensions could potentially play an important role from a regulatory perspective.
Business Model Value Proposition
CE transformation also concerns business models. Nussholz [75] highlighted that CE includes transforming linear value creation structures to ensure long-term economic benefits. Current linear business models, on the one hand, become a barrier towards CE, if they are based on fast production, e.g. in the fashion industry, with products ending up with low quality and no value to be captured and resold [91]. On the other hand, transformation of linear business models holds a great economic potential [91,92,93,94]. However, the requirements for new transformative business models are considered to be exhaustive since they should provide additional value compared to competitors while producing less ecological burdens [71] and being profitable for a company [67]. Ada et al. [95] highlighted that the redesign of production processes may not only reduce pollution and environmental impacts, but also enable a company to reach new value levels.
In their framework, Urbinati et al. [94] showed four generic approaches for CE implementation in business models. For the development of such business models, literature frequently referred to the Business Model Canvas by Osterwalder and Pigneur [96], e.g [97, 98].., extending its value creation focus. Circular business models’ value creation targets beyond traditional stakeholder groups towards social and environmental value creation [58, 97,98,99], considering the entirety of society as stakeholder [58] i.e., businesses, communities and industries [100]. This underlines the interconnection between market, social and environmental perspective in a CE context. For the classification of circular business models, Rosa et al. [48] referred to the Sustainable Value Exchange Matrix which is developed by Morioka et al. [101]. Value proposition is a central aspect of business modelling [75] and describes the reason for customer’s choice for a specific company [96, 97]. Through new circular business models, customer value proposition is substantially changed [102]. A detailed description of customer value proposition in a CE context was provided by [99].
Customer Perspective
Perceived Quality and Value
The product value ultimately defined by the customer [103], is determined by intrinsic as well as a relational or emotional characteristics [89, 104]. Expressing their expectation on quality [71], product use and pleasure, customers attribute an individual value to a product or service which is referred to as Customer Perceived Value (CPV) [89]. The difference between the market price and the CPV is referred to as ‘surplus value’ indicating the desirability of an offer [71, 89]. In contrast to commodity products where price almost equals value, luxury products may show very high surplus values [71] and are cited as good examples for circularity incentivizing for loss prevention [105]. In the reverse case example, dropping food prices due to industrialization have led to a lower perceived value of food in society and an increase in waste and losses [106]. Product circularity also depends on endurance, i.e., the avoidance of physical, technical, aesthetic or social obsolescence [56]. Perceived value may be increased through design [71] and high-quality products [102].
Quality perception is not always based on functional attributes but often relates to superficial habits such as colours [107,108,109] and may also be influenced by ambiguity and vice versa [110]. Milios and Matsumoto [110] highlighted that perceived quality as well as perceived risk is finally influencing willingness to pay (WTP), which again highlights the nexus between social and economic perspective.
CPV can be contaminated, i.e., impacted by real or perceived changes in products’ conditions [111]. Such contamination can either be positive if e.g., a product is worn by a celebrity or negative, which is often the case if previous product use causes a worse image leading to diminished appreciation and utilization of circular or secondary products [102, 111]. Currently, the social value dimension, i.e. perceived quality often constitutes a major barrier to CE implementation [111, 112], especially if lower prices for secondary products are mentally connected to inferior quality [110]. Fashion industry is stated to be vulnerable to contamination in CPV [100]. Wagner and Heinzel [100] pointed out that perceived value in the industry is driven by quality, performance, consumer effectiveness, i.e., the belief to support environmental protection by behaviour, as well as availability and economic risk which plays an important role for secondary products. However, overcoming barriers of social prejudices by changing customer awareness may take time [102], requires informing customers and is strongly influenced by cultural mindsets [99].
Ownership
CPV is not only influenced by quality perception, but also by the valuation of ownership, which is — especially for products potentially functioning as status symbol — more appreciated than functionality itself [98]. Traditional linear structures are often based on product possession [113]; whereas CE aims at valuing experience and functionality above ownership [114].
Value in use has already been recognized as an additional value dimension by early economic literature [47]. However, market value and value in use seem to be closely connected, as functionality is highlighted to be market oriented [66].
Certification
Customer perceived risk may be mitigated through certification [110], which increases CPV and perceived product quality. A survey amongst Swedish clients by Milios and Matsumoto [110] showed that trustful quality certification, especially by an industry association, would increase the willingness to purchase remanufactured auto parts, even though such certification would not constitute the most important factor in the purchase decision. Nußholz et al. [74], Paletta et al. [109] and Hagelüken et al. [105] also presented product quality certification as potential solution for fostering CE progress both in terms of customer perceived quality but also for assuring certain quality levels for further treatment of waste streams to be used as secondary resources. As an example, for such quality certification efforts for CE, Nußholz et al. [74] mentioned two individual Danish companies having introduced national standards for product certification to foster demand for secondary products. A similar approach was shown by [115], in which the authors stated that the recyclers should be certified assuring the quality standards DIN EN ISO 9000:2015 [38] to achieve a reliable and functioning recycling system for tires. In this context, it also needs to be considered that CE standards will force companies to measure waste and trace its origins, which may then add value to companies [106].
Functionality
Functionality is a widely used term in CE, especially focusing on the loop systems and differentiation between recycling and downcycling [9, 70, 73, 116, 117]. Hahladakis and Iacovidou [118] defined quality as remaining functionality in the waste management industry. Similarly, Adams et al. [65] referred to value, quality, and functionality as downcycling indicators. The design perspective highlighted by Sauerwein et al. [119], which is also discussed in R-strategies and design subsection, indirectly refers to product functionality in the context of quality and high value. When it comes to the quality of secondary materials and their substitution potential, functionality is the aspect that is most often mentioned. For instance, Eriksen et al. [120] stated that material substitution through recycling not only depends on quantity but also the quality, which is defined as the ability to fulfill the functionality of substituted virgin material.
The importance of functionality within the value aspect was also highlighted. Even though value was mainly used in monetary context, the usual perception of value — as economic value — was criticized by many authors [3, 76, 81, 82, 97, 121, 122]. In the context of economic aspect, functionality includes future aspects such as demand and resource scarcity, which are essential in CE context, in contrast to price, which mainly reflects current market conditions. For instance, Urbinati et al. [94] stated that product value should be represented by the number of functional units in its lifetime rather than by the price, which aims to replace the “pay-per-own” with the “pay-per-use” approach. Similarly, Martins et al. [123] supported this idea by mentioning that customers will be the product users, not the owners. However, in this context, as discussed in the Customer perspectivesection, customer acceptance as part of the social dimension also needs to be taken into consideration.
Functionality itself was mainly defined as technical ability to perform a task or usefulness [82, 103]; however, there are other elements such as social, aesthetic, or economic that can be used in the functionality definition considering consumer needs [111]. Elzinga et al. [98] emphasized this from a customer perspective giving an example of luxury products, where the status symbols become more important than the functionality. However, especially in the CE context, for most products the functionality is strongly connected to value [78, 124], which is also reflected as economic value [66]. Within CE, both in recycling systems and reused materials, high quality materials were mentioned to maximize value by keeping their functionality [51, 125]. In addition, Moraga et al. [126] indicated functional and economic value as a dimension of product quality. Furthermore, functional requirements were stated to be based on application types, which then affect the quality requirements [126, 127]. Functionality is a broad term that covers many relevant dimensions related to circular systems and is a core aspect within CE literature [10, 128, 129].
Overall, within reviewed studies, functionality was used especially as a quality indicator for environmental assessment of recycling systems within LCA. From a social perspective customer perceived quality is linked to the product functionality which.
Technical Attributes
Regarding product quality, technical attributes were mentioned as an indicator for assigning different quality levels. Some authors mentioned it as products’ discernible characteristics [130], inherent and intrinsic material properties [51, 104], or technical requirements / properties [67, 131] as quality indicators. Some others stated the technical product properties a should be added to other value dimensions already outlined, namely economic, social, and environmental [12, 54, 122].
In general, product technical properties were widely used in quality and value retention context; however, specification of these technical properties and how they are linked to quality lacks in many studies. Within the reviewed studies, it was observed that studies focusing on plastic included a more concrete specification and quantification of quality based on technical properties compared to other product groups. Even not much observed as plastics, there were some studies on concrete/construction materials that also specified the technical properties as quality characteristics. In the following section, the technical properties for plastic and concrete/construction groups that were observed in the reviewed studies are further explained.
Plastics
Some authors used specific technical properties of plastics for quality assessment, including interfacial tension [54], tensile strain [61, 132], intrinsic viscosity [133, 134], melt flow index [77, 133], and flexural/tensile modulus [5, 77, 132, 135, 136]. Some others mentioned mechanical properties, among other quality indicators such as color, odor, flammability or processing properties [5]. Hahladakis and Iacovidou [118] stated that the quality depends on the properties of the material, its designed characteristics, and the changes during their use, handling, and reprocessing.
Sanchez et al. [77] used a framework for technical quality characterization considering three major elements: structural and morphological feasibility of production and stability, and low molecular weight compounds, which considers chemical nature, macroscopic properties, and degradation products—impurities—, respectively. As there may be different technical parameters that can be relevant, consideration of all relevant parameters is important. A remarkable example of this is the study conducted by Eriksen et al. [120], in which different quality levels for plastics were defined depending on the field of application, as there are different parameters, such as physical and chemical, composition, mechanical strength, color, odor, additive concentration, and content of toxic chemicals, which can have different importance for different applications. In addition, the authors have not only considered the technical properties of plastics, but also the market situation for the circularity assessment and carried out a thorough evaluation.
Some authors used the technical properties for quality indicator calculation. Civancik-Uslu et al. [135], for instance, conducted a case study focusing on polypropylene and compared three different quality measurements within LCA following DIN EN ISO 14044:2020 [137], namely technical properties, price as well as composition and price. The authors concluded that technical properties — based on flexural modulus — constitute the most suitable approach for quality assessment. Following a different approach, Huysman et al. [54] defined four different compatibility classes, which are based on interfacial tension, and then also connected these compatibility classes to quality of plastics that will end up in four different waste treatment options: (1) closed-loop, (2) semi closed-loop, (3) open-loop, and (4) incineration. However, the range for different compatibility classes was set according to literature values for quality and mentioned that it requires further validation [54]. Nakamura and Kondo [138] highlighted the use of waste plastics for fueling cement kilns as an example of indirect substitution of primary materials caused by a lack of quality in recyclates.
Concrete / Construction Materials
The studies focusing on concrete mentioned that the quality is related to strength of the concrete which is affected by water content, aggregate size, and aggregate expansion amount etc [139]... Similarly, Yu et al. [140] remarked the importance of the quality of recycled concrete aggregates and linked it to grading size, particle roughness and general cleanliness. From a different perspective, a study focusing on environmental potential of selective demolition, Melella et al. [57] highlighted the role of dimensional, performance, or aesthetic characteristics within value creation as enablers for reuse.
Other Product Groups
Quality within recycling was mentioned in various case studies in different fields, focusing on biogas and biodiesel production [62, 141, 142], mushroom crops [143], steel scrap [144], paper [107], textile [145, 146], and additive manufacturing [147]. For metals, Niero et al. [148] referred to the ILCD handbook for the quantification of quality downgrading of recycled metals, e.g., through quantification of inherent properties or the comparison of primary and secondary materials.
However, quantification of quality levels was not always reported. A complete reporting of how the quality levels were assigned and what assumptions were made is essential and should be provided in further research.
Longevity
Lifetime plays a central role in valuation and gains specific importance in CE context with multiple or extended use cycles for products and materials [49, 78]. During their life cycle stages, products incorporate different values [66, 72]. R-Strategies constitute enablers for longevity, furthermore, longevity is strongly connected to functionality as well. Shevchenko et al. [72] mentioned that “the circularity actually has no value in and of itself, but it does imply that a material provides value over a longer period of time”. They referred to Franklin-Johnson et al. [149], who introduced a new circularity indicator based on longevity as a value oriented and non-monetary approach. Franklin-Johnson et al. [149] highlighted the importance of longevity within CE and criticized current CE indicators for being based on resource use. To address this, the authors introduced a new indicator, the longevity indicator, capturing the time span that a resource has been in use, i.e., its initial lifetime as well as refurbished and recycled lifetime contributions and their respective probabilities [149].
Product quality was mentioned together with durability [56, 58, 150], which extends product lifetime. It is hence also closely connected to the functionality and R-strategies aspects.
R-Strategies & Design
Even though CE literature oftentimes referred to value as economic value [72, 81, 151, 152], value creation in CE contains four dimensions, namely smaller/faster cycles with less energy and resources, cycling for longer, cascaded uses and pure regenerative cycles exist [2, 5, 59, 121]. These cycles do not only refer to technical but also biological material cycles [51]. Hence, in CE value creation is closely connected to its retention [56, 70, 78, 104] and maximization [57] by extension [46, 153] and preservation [75]. However, the value term itself is often not defined in detail in such contexts [108, 154].
In contrast, the term product quality is defined as remaining quality in the context of waste management [118] or at least connected to functionality within cascading systems for distinguishing between up- and downcycling [9, 51, 73, 116, 117, 125]. From the reviewed articles, it was observed that product and material quality relating to R-strategies were used considering different life cycle stages. Therefore, it was decided to present them according to these phases, which are roughly referred to as product design, first product phase and second product phase, in the following section.
Product Design
CE already starts in the design phase of products. Concepts such as green products [155], design for deconstruction [74] or design for upgradability and adaptability [119] aim at extending product lifespan and increase EoL product quality and reduce costs of circular practices such as deconstruction [75]. Through proper product design, product quality can be improved, influenced by e.g., functionality and longevity, which are further discussed in subsections Functionality and Longevity. Loop optimization requires the integration of product design as well as business model innovation and reverse network management to reach CE goals [81].
Overall, it can be said that product design characterizes product quality [118] not only by enabling environmental and economic savings through lightweight product design [156] as well as technical and biological cycles [150], but also by creating customer product value inducing longer or more intensive product use [71].
Initial Product Quality
From a circularity perspective, initial product quality is especially important since it marks the root of further cascades [157]. In terms of value, cascading systems promote the importance of retained, residual or preserved value [46, 59, 60], which may also be expressed in terms of energy, labour and material [158]. EoL product value depends on available options and required efforts for further use, but also potential disposal costs [154]. Further processing can increase the value of the EoL product by utilizing it for further applications yet incurs additional costs [142]. In this vein, recyclability [113, 133, 153, 159, 160], ease of repair and disassembly [52, 56, 161], reusability [104, 156] or demountability for reuse [125] are characterizing product quality and product value in a CE context. Reusability, in turn, may besides functionality also depend on aesthetic characteristics [57].
Secondary Product Quality
In terms of quality retention, the role of remanufacturing was particularly highlighted [55] since– according to British Standards Institute (8001:2017) [162]– remanufacturing exclusively guarantees at least equal product performance or quality compared to newly manufactured products [163].
If materials are to be recycled, purity of the input streams is mentioned to be a crucial factor for recycled product quality [164, 62, 133, 73, 118, 165,166,167, 117, 168, 148, 5, 169,170,171]. It determines whether recyclates can represent direct or indirect substitutes for primary materials [138]. Purity is not only the result of waste quality [51, 140], but is also determined by sorting and collection systems as well as recycling process itself [77, 99, 134, 138, 170, 172]. The role of recycling quality within CE was highlighted by many authors, and downcycling is stated to be a barrier for CE. A huge quantity of recycled materials is lost due to its low quality, and the stagnation of low-quality recycled materials cause a problem [115, 120, 173, 174]. In case required purity cannot be reached, three different types of contamination, namely technical, systemic and interaction contamination can be distinguished [111]. For the example of aluminium scrap, Niero et al. [148] remarked that its value is directly dependant on the contamination level.
Comparison of Alternatives
The multitude of CE strategies requires careful analysis of the best available options in terms of environmental performance and may require cross-sectional collaboration to find possibilities for industrial symbiosis to maintain value [112]. Related to recycling, literature often distinguished practices in up- and downcycling [140]. Here, the latter often relates to a loss in quality [70, 169]; however, the indicators of quality loss or its quantification tend to be undefined, and few of the articles reviewed specify the parameters for quality assessment, which are further discussed in the Section Quality inclusion in the CE indicators. .
Tanguay et al. [157] outlined that the introduction of a quality indicator comparing newly manufactured and secondary quality has a strong impact in comparative LCA studies. An overview of similar approaches for measuring quality in material cycles was provided by Kral et al. [131]. Likewise, Sazdovski et al. [5] compared different allocation methods for considering quality in LCA taking the example of beverage cans. As this example shows, the lack of standardization in the field [169] may lead to big differences in LCA results.
Obstacles to High-Quality CE Practices
Product quality management is a key difficulty in CE implementation [95]. Currently, low quality product and waste quality are often considered to hinder high-quality CE as it makes additional process steps necessary and thus decreases profitability of recycling processes [164]. Since market prices do not necessarily cover costs [103, 105], EoL product values currently may also take negative values [175]. Furthermore, numerous authors highlighted that CE implementation currently lacks product quality certification [176] and standardization of products [177] and recycling processes [77] to ensure high-quality circulation. For quality assurance, CE transformation requires standards also on scrap level [144]. Experiences from industries with high product standardization levels have shown important reuse potentials [57] and could hence serve as role model for other industries. Similarly, Yu et al. [140] highlighted the importance of clear and strict waste classification which will lead increased quality of recycled material with reduced cost, as purity of construction and demolition waste will be reduced. The current calculation approaches on recycling systems were criticized, and some suggestions for a complete overview were presented. For instance, Aguilar-Hernandez et al. [178] suggested to use hybrid data tables including the waste stream in physical units (mass) and services in monetary values for on environmentally extended input-output analysis, rather than using purely market-based approaches. Similarly, Haupt and Hellweg [174] criticized the current recycling rate calculation, which is solely based on the collection rate that does not reflect any information on the efficiency of recycling system and quality of the recycled material.
Even though the importance of quality in CE was clearly stated by many authors, difficulties of assessing material quality was also mentioned, as it is based on multiple technical characteristics which are sometimes difficult to compare/combine [179]. Even though a comprehensive analysis covering all relevant aspects is essential, it is worth mentioning that the quality assessment for different products often can be time-consuming and challenging, as each product group is subject to different parameters, as stated by [120].
Environmental Aspect
Environmental value is mainly considered as a pillar of sustainability, in addition to economic and social value. Many authors referred to the connection between economic and environmental aspects [48, 51, 61, 69, 75, 149, 153, 180]. In the value creation and product value topics, terms such as eco-value [180], green value creation [76] and eco-efficient resource use [149] were observed to be used for combination of economic and environmental dimensions. Regarding the environmental value, i.e., the link between economic and environmental aspects, it is worth remarking that the consideration of externalities plays an essential role in reflecting the reality.
Criticising the current practices, Mikkilä et al. [81] stated that the economic value is the only value dimension that has been quantified so far. Unlike economic value, where e.g., accounting standards define value calculation [73], limited data availability constitutes a main challenge for quantifying environmental and social value [81]. From a customer perspective, Elzinga et al. [98] mentioned that through economic value creation for society, value proposition will be extended to environmental and social value creation. In CE and value creation, there are different views when it comes to the relation between sustainability dimensions. For instance, Santagata et al. [181] mentioned that the “waste to resources” approach creates added value and simultaneously reduces environmental impacts. On the contrary, Stegmann et al. [122] stated that circular approaches are not always sustainable, and Sauerwein et al. [119] put emphasis on the differentiation of sustainable and circular practices. Sazdovski et al. [5] highlighted that environmental impact optimization requires knowledge on limitations of circularity due to quality degradation of materials.
Environmental quality and value were also studied as an indicator within CE. For instance, retained environmental value (REV), introduced by Haupt and Hellweg [174], compares the environmental impact of recycled/remanufactured product to original product. REV covers not only the value retention processes (such as recycling etc.) but also the use-phase and any changes that occur in the use-phase. The authors highlighted the importance of considering three pillars for sustainability within circularity assessment and mentioned that economic and social aspects should also be considered. Similarly, Steinmann et al. [9] introduced an indicator for the circularity of material quality (Qc) which is based on energy demand and the net energy demand of recycled products is compared to original one. In addition, LCA on recycling systems, the importance of quality aspect to differentiate downcycling and recycling was mentioned and studied [7]. Although LCAs for recycling systems are widely used, the quality of recycled products is rarely considered in LCAs. The latter is illustrated, for example, in a SLR focusing on LCA for recycling of construction and demolition waste by Bayram and Greiff [35], in which the authors present the current state of LCA studies and highlight the lack of inclusion of recycled material quality in LCA.
Quality Inclusion in the CE Indicators
In order to answer the RQ2, CE indicators and other assessment methods (e.g. LCA), within the selected literature were analyzed with regard to their approach towards product and material quality. Some authors explicitly stated and defined quality while using quality as a parameter for circularity indicators, which are explained in detail in this section.
Within LCA, Civancik-Uslu et al. [135] included recycled material quality in three different ways, based on technical, price, and a combination of price and composition. The authors concluded that a quality factor based on technical properties (in the case study defined as flexural modulus of wood sheet) reflects the reality better than market price. Similarly, Tanguay et al. [157] emphasized the importance of considering quality in LCA of recycling systems and concluded that the inclusion of quality changes the results by up to 15% in attributional LCA and by over 97% in consequential LCA. Quality factors were determined based on market values or inherent characteristics; however, the suitability and identification of quality factors was noted to be outside the scope of the study and suggested for further studies to undertake [157].
Considering environmental aspects, Haupt and Hellweg [174] introduced a new indicator, retained environmental value (REV), to quantify environmental value retention. Product quality is considered in terms of the type and quantity of primary material displaced, taking into account functional equivalence, available quantities and market preferences. Authors also highlighted the need for further research focusing on economic and social aspects to be included in CE indicators [174]. Steinmann et al. [9] proposed circularity of material quality (Qc), which is an energy-based indicator and calculated as the ratio of recycled to primary material. In the calculation of Qc, possible losses and dilution (as wt.-%) were considered. Charnley et al. [130] defined a new indicator called certainty of product quality (CPQ) which is a function of physical condition, part remanufacturing history, part replacement history and data from sensors, following a weigted approach. The authors mentioned that “if the remanufacturer was certain/confident about the quality of the returned product, the CPQ value would be between 0.8 and 1.0. If the remanufacturer was uncertain, the number would be between 0.1 and 0.5”. However, the suitability and certainity of the assumed values are critical. Schaubroeck et al. [49] introduced a framework for sustainability assessment of CE. Even though the aforementioned authors emphasized the importance of material quality, no explicit definition of quality was mentioned, and it was stated that “various quality parameters could be considered, but here we just present quality in general” (p.6). Eriksen et al. [120] assessed the circularity potential of plastic packaging considering the quality aspect. The authors defined quality based on various aspects covering such as physical and chemical composition, mechanical strength, color, odor, additive concentration, and content of toxic chemicals. Focusing on plastic packaging, this quality assessment and its inclusion in CE assessment, we think that this is a well-defined and comprehensive approach; however, it is data- and time-intensive. Huysman et al. [54] introduced CE performance indicator for post plastic waste considering quality aspect. The authors used a technical property-based quality assessment, i.e., interfacial tension. In total, four different compatibility classes were defined, and the quality was calculated as a function of the mass percentage of the added polymer.
In general, quantifying quality as a function of CE indicator is a complex issue that requires further research. Through this review, we identified three main challenges of using quality within CE indicators. Firstly, quality indicators are specific to each individual product group as the relevant parameters change based on the product group, thus, a generalized indicator could not be used. Secondly, the fact that quality is a broad concept encompassing different aspects: economic, technical, environmental etc., covering all the relevant aspects requires data and it can be a time-intensive process. Lastly, when it comes to the quantification of quality, the risk of double counting should be considered as relevant parameters from different dimensions are not totally independent from each other. In align with this aspect, also the weighting of the various parameters in the quantification of quality as an end-point value poses a challenge.
In-Depth Discussion and Synthesis with Existing Research Findings
In this section, a deeper discussion is presented by summarizing the findings observed in this review. In addition, the research findings are synthesized together with relevant research on quality in CE. A summary of the research findings is summarized in Table 1, covering the explanations and barriers. In the articles reviewed, the term quality is frequently used in the context of R-strategies, especially when distinguishing between recycling and downcycling, however, a definition of quality was rarely provided. When considering longevity in the CE context, quality tends to be mentioned in terms of durability and there is limited focus on this aspect. On the contrary, market value was also mostly mentioned in connection with quality in the articles reviewed, particularly in the assessment of the various sustainability dimensions (economic and environmental) and the assessment of the CE. Although the use of market value as a quality indicator is quite straightforward and understandable, it is also criticized as the monetary value does not always reflect quality and is volatile. The customer perceived quality is rather individual and can encompass various aspects, such as intrinsic or emotional. To promote the CE transition, ownership is mainly seen as a barrier and certification as a means to gain customer confidence. With regard to the social dimension, it should be noted that some relevant aspects such as equity and quality of life were not observed in the articles reviewed. We acknowledge this limitation, which could be due to the choice of keywords. However, at the micro level, where the focus is on materials or products, the social dimension is rarely considered, which is also emphasized by previous studies [18, 182], although, as shown by Kirchherr et al. [18], the number of studies considering the social dimension is increasing, whereby the environmental and economic dimensions are still predominant over the social one.
When it comes to explicit definition and quantification of quality, functionality is a widely used term. Similarly, the technical properties of products and materials are closely linked to functionality. For instance, when quality indicators are used in LCA, quantification is generally done by considering functionality, which is determined based on the technical characteristics of the product in question. However, market value as quality indicator or assumption-based quality parameters are also used in LCAs, as the lack of data is one of the main obstacles to conducting a thorough assessment that includes all relevant technical parameters for quantifying quality. In environmental assessment, the issue of quality has been discussed not only in the context of LCA, but also in the CE indicators. The main focus in this context is on the secondary product and its quality compared to the primary product. As mentioned previously, two remarkable examples indicators that were introduced are Qc [9] and REV [174], both of which take similar approaches in terms of the relative impact of the recycled material compared to the primary material being replaced by the recycled material.
When considering the comparison of the results of the present study with relevant previous research in the field of quality in the context of CE, two studies dealing with the quality of recycling [4, 10] provide a relevant synthesis of the results. In the review focusing on quality of recycling performed by Tonini et al. [10], the authors emphasized the lack of quality definitions in scientific studies focusing with recycling and concluded that in defining the quality of recycling, the technical properties of recyclates are essential, together with functionality, which reflects whether and to what extent the recyclate finds an end use. In addition, the authors noted a link between functionality and substitution in relation to environmental assessment in the CE context. The authors also indicated that there is a need for further research concerning a quality framework for the environmental assessment of recycling systems [10]. In the present study, we came to a similar conclusion when it comes to recycling and the quality of secondary materials, although the study was broader in scope and not limited to recycling. Based on the present review, it was found that in the environmental assessment of recycling systems, technical properties and functionality are two key terms used as quality parameters and/or indicators. However, detailed information and how the quantification of quality was carried out are rarely documented. Within the reviewed articles, a good example is the study by Eriksen et al. [120], in which a comprehensive assessment of quality quantification considering technical characteristics and market situation was conducted, although the authors also acknowledged the challenge of high data requirements and time-consuming assessment for such a detailed analysis. Within the topic of downcycling, a relevant study performed by Helbig et al. [4], which focuses on the terminology and the authors introduce three types of downcycling: thermodynamic, functional, and economic downcycling. The focus of the study is again on the recycling stage, and impurities, dilution, lack of demand or design-related downcycling are identified as possible causes for the reduction in material quality. Even though the scope of the study differs slightly between Tonini et al. [10] and Helbig et al. [4], both identify technical properties, functionality, and the market situation as the main factors for the quality of recycling or downcycling.
The quantification of quality is a particularly relevant topic in LCA, and there is an ongoing discussion, especially with regard to substitution approaches for recycled materials. There are some relevant studies that provided guidance for substitution in LCA, in which quality aspect becomes relevant. For instance, framework developed by Vadenbo et al. [36], is a remarkable example, from which further research can be built upon. In a recent study Roosen et al. [11] introduced a framework to quantify quality of recycling, which is calculated using three dimensions: virgin displacement potential, in-use stock lifetime and environmental impacts. While doing that, for the virgin displacement potential, the authors build upon the framework introduced by Vadenbo et al. [36], in which the specific focus is on substitution in LCA. For the technical suitability for the substitution (which is used as a function in virgin displacement potential), mechanical properties, processability, aesthetics properties, chemical load and legal boundaries are stated. At this point, the relevance of different indicators may vary depending on the product group in question. In addition, the legal limits are not always reflected by the technical characteristics and the permissibility varies from country to country. At this point, relevant aspects for quality quantification could be selected depending on the product group with justification and transparent documentation. Although there is an ongoing discussion and efforts in LCA research, it is worth noting that the quantification of quality and its inclusion in substitution in LCA requires further research.
Conclusion
The present literature review showed a close connection and interdependency between the terms of product and material quality and value in current scientific CE literature. Although this study provides a comprehensive overview of the definition of product quality in the CE context, there are some limitations of this study. The literature search covers only peer-reviewed, English-language journal articles; therefore, some relevant gray literature that could fit within the scope of the study was not included. With regard to the social dimensions of sustainability in the context of CE, we recognize the potential limitation of this review, which may be caused by the choice of keywords. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that, especially at the micro level, research on social dimensions is rather limited compared to environmental and economic aspects. Hence, the elaboration of additional social factors in relation to product and material quality could constitute an avenue for further research.
With regard to the first research question, it can be stated that the terms quality and value are discussed in a large variety of contexts which are partly interdependent. We observed that functionality is a key term mostly used as an indicator of quality, and that market value is a parameter strongly influenced by product quality. On the other hand, technical characteristics, longevity, R-strategies and design, and environmental aspects are generally used to characterize product quality.
Through this review, we observed that no uniform definition of the terms exists and that the particularities of the respective application contexts of products and materials should be considered, which was also pointed out by Helbig et al. [4] and Tonini et al. [10]. Another interesting finding was that the reviewed articles rarely refer to quality standards or provide explicit definitions of the quality definition on which their analyses are based.
Regarding the second research question, quality inclusion and its quantification in CE indicators was observed to be limited and mostly based on assumptions instead of justified calculations.
Hence, in further research, studies with specific targets on individual product groups could be useful to define specific quality elements and provide approaches for their reliable quantification. Although some studies have introduced quality factors to be used in LCA studies in particular, the quantification of quality factors and parameters considered is rather based on assumptions and is a research topic that should be further investigated. Since CE is a holistic concept that encompasses different aspects and levels, a common understanding of CE would be helpful to achieve consistency. At this point, it should be noted that standardization of CE, especially when it comes to CE measures and indicators, plays an important role. As far as CE standardization is concerned, ISO/TC 323 covers various aspects that have been partially completed or are currently in progress. Besides standardization, the scientific community creates great potential through the further development and conceptualization of CE, where clear statements and documentation are essential.
Additionally, it can be concluded that the social perspective, more specifically the customer perspective, which is already part of the DIN EN ISO 9000:2015 [38], is and will be of special importance in the CE context. The perceived value perspective plays a central role for the successful transition towards a CE as customer acceptance finally determines product acceptance in a free market along the product life cycle. However, besides acceptance, the findings of the literature highlight the necessity for market prices to reflect to include environmental and social impacts and enable holistic decision making.
The multitude of criteria which appears both in the DIN EN ISO 9000:2015 [38] quality definition as well as in the findings of the literature review also indicate a central problem for universal quality standardization and certification. If the latter aims at increasing customer acceptance, the certificate itself needs to be accepted. However, if the diversity of quality criteria for different contexts requires a multitude of different certificates, the latter may decrease simplicity and hence customer acceptance. Criteria for standardization as well as the weighting of different quality criteria in certificates and assessments could hence constitute avenues for further research.
All in all, the review has shown that the quality term has a multifaceted definition in a CE context which needs to be specified in the respective application context while still providing numerous areas for further research as of now. The quantification of quality is a current topic of discussion and is gaining importance with the increasing attention on the transition to CE. Although a standardized definition and quantification framework may be challenging and not applicable, we strongly recommend that authors clearly define quality in their respective research and transparently document and justify the selected quality parameters and indicators. A further review has shown that quality in the context of CE requires a comprehensive analysis covering various aspects, which can be data-intensive and time-consuming. At the same time, the multitude of dimensions to be considered underlines the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in research as well as other relevant actors, such as policy makers and standardization bodies.
Notes
A Scopus search conducted on 24.02.2023 with the search terms: Title-Abstract-Keywords: “Circular Economy” AND “Literature Review” resulted in 1,170 results in total.
References
European Commission (2015) Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013) Towards the circular economy. Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition
Reike D, Vermeulen WJ, 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.2017.08.027
Helbig C, Huether J, Joachimsthaler C et al (2022) A terminology for downcycling. J Industrial Ecol 26:1164–1174. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13289
Sazdovski I, Bala A, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2021) Linking LCA literature with circular economy value creation: a review on beverage packaging. Sci Total Environ 771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145322
Poulikakos LD, Papadaskalopoulou C, Hofko B et al (2017) Harvesting the unexplored potential of European waste materials for road construction. Resour Conserv Recycl 116:32–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.008
Di Maria A, Eyckmans J, van Acker K (2018) Downcycling versus recycling of construction and demolition waste: combining LCA and LCC to support sustainable policy making. Waste Manag 75:3–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.01.028
McDowall W, Geng Y, Huang B et al (2017) Circular economy policies in China and Europe. J Ind Ecol 21:651–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12597
Steinmann ZJ, Huijbregts MA, Reijnders L (2019) How to define the quality of materials in a circular economy? Resources. Conserv Recycling 141:362–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.040
Tonini D, Albizzati PF, Caro D et al (2022) Quality of recycling: urgent and undefined. Waste Manag 146:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.04.037
Roosen M, Tonini D, Albizzati PF et al (2023) Operational Framework to Quantify Quality of Recycling across different material types. Environ Sci Technol 57:13669–13680. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c03023
Moraga G, Huysveld S, Mathieux F et al (2019) Circular economy indicators: what do they measure? Resources. Conserv Recycling 146:452–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.045
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.2019.118531
Alcalde-Calonge A, Sáez-Martínez FJ, Ruiz-Palomino P (2022) Evolution of research on circular economy and related trends and topics. A thirteen-year review. Ecol Inf 70:101716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101716
Lahti T, Wincent J, Parida V (2018) A definition and theoretical review of the Circular Economy, Value Creation, and Sustainable Business models: where are we now and where should Research move in the future? Sustainability 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082799
Nobre GC, Tavares E (2021) The quest for a circular economy final definition: a scientific perspective. J Clean Prod 314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127973
Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resources. Conserv Recycling 127:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
Kirchherr J, Yang N-HN, Schulze-Spüntrup F et al (2023) Conceptualizing the Circular Economy (revisited): an analysis of 221 definitions. Resources. Conserv Recycling 194:107001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107001
Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken NMP et al (2017) The Circular Economy ÔÇô a new sustainability paradigm? J Clean Prod 143:757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
Schöggl J-P, Stumpf L, Baumgartner RJ (2020) The narrative of sustainability and circular economy - A longitudinal review of two decades of research. Resour Conserv Recycl 163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105073
Schroeder P, Anggraeni K, Weber U (2019) The relevance of Circular Economy practices to the Sustainable Development Goals. J Industrial Ecol 23:77–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12732
Saidani M, Yannou B, Leroy Y et al (2019) A taxonomy of circular economy indicators. J Clean Prod 207:542–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.014
Vinante C, Sacco P, Orzes G et al (2021) Circular economy metrics: literature review and company-level classification framework. J Clean Prod 288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125090
Adami L, Schiavon M (2021) From circular economy to circular ecology: a review on the solution of environmental problems through circular waste management approaches. Sustain (Switzerland) 13:1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020925
Centobelli P, Cerchione R, Chiaroni D et al (2020) Designing business models in circular economy: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Bus Strategy Environ 29:1734–1749. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2466
Lewandowski M (2016) Designing the business models for circular economy-towards the conceptual framework. Sustainability 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010043
Luedeke-Freund F, Gold S, Bocken NMP (2019) A review and typology of Circular Economy business model patterns. J Industrial Ecol 23:36–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12763
Santa-Maria T, Vermeulen W, Baumgartner RJ (2021) Framing and assessing the emergent field of business model innovation for the circular economy: a combined literature review and multiple case study approach. Sustainable Prod Consum 26:872–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.037
Alhawari O, Awan U, Bhutta M et al (2021) Insights from circular economy literature: a review of extant definitions and unravelling paths to future research. Sustain (Switzerland) 13:1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020859
Aloini D, Dulmin R, Mininno V et al (2020) Driving the transition to a circular economic model: a systematic review on drivers and critical success factors in circular economy. Sustain (Switzerland) 12:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410672
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.2017.12.112
Prieto-Sandoval V, Jaca C, Ormazabal M (2018) Towards a consensus on the circular economy. J Clean Prod 179:605–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.224
Rigamonti L, Grosso M, Sunseri MC (2009) Influence of assumptions about selection and recycling efficiencies on the LCA of integrated waste management systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:411–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0095-3
Borghi G, Pantini S, Rigamonti L (2018) Life cycle assessment of non-hazardous construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) management in Lombardy Region (Italy). J Clean Prod 184:815–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.287
Bayram B, Greiff K (2023) Life cycle assessment on construction and demolition waste recycling: a systematic review analyzing three important quality aspects. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02145-1
Vadenbo C, Hellweg S, Astrup TF (2017) Let’s be clear(er) about substitution: a reporting Framework to Account for product displacement in Life Cycle Assessment. J Industrial Ecol 21:1078–1089. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12519
Nakamura S, Kondo Y, Nakajima K et al (2017) Quantifying recycling and losses of Cr and Ni in Steel throughout multiple life cycles using MaTrace-Alloy. Environ Sci Technol 51:9469–9476. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b01683
Schüffler C (2015) European Committee for Standardization Quality management systems– Fundamentals and vocabulary (ISO 9000:2015)
Hart C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination, 1. Publ. Sage, London
Fink A (2014) Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper, Fourth edition. Sage, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC
Kitchenham B (2007) Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 10:89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
Xiao Y, Watson M (2019) Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J Plann Educ Res 39:93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
Seuring S, Müller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 16:1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020
van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) VOSViewer: Visualizing Scientific Landscapes [Software]
Bocken N, de Pauw I, Bakker C et al (2016) Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. J Industrial Prod Eng 33:308–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124
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.12552
Rosa P, Sassanelli C, Terzi S (2019) Towards Circular Business models: a systematic literature review on classification frameworks and archetypes. J Clean Prod 236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117696
Schaubroeck T, Gibon T, Igos E et al (2021) Sustainability assessment of circular economy over time: modelling of finite and variable loops & impact distribution among related products. Resour Conserv Recycl 168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105319
DIN EN 15804 (2021) Sustainability of construction works– environmental product declarations: core rules for the product category of construction products; German version EN 15804:2012 + A2:2019 + AC:2021
Navare K, Muys B, Vrancken KC et al (2021) Circular economy monitoring– how to make it apt for biological cycles? Resources. Conserv Recycling 170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105563
Pamminger R, Glaser S, Wimmer W (2021) Modelling of different circular end-of-use scenarios for smartphones. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26:470–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01869-2
Pieratti E, Paletto A, de Meo I et al (2019) Assessing the forest-wood chain at local level: a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) based on the circular bioeconomy principles. Annals for Res 62:123–138. https://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2018.1238
Huysman S, de Schaepmeester J, Ragaert K et al (2017) Performance indicators for a circular economy: a case study on post-industrial plastic waste. Resour Conserv Recycl 120:46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.013
Agrawal R, Wankhede VA, Kumar A et al (2021) Analysing the roadblocks of circular economy adoption in the automobile sector: reducing waste and environmental perspectives. Bus Strategy Environ 30:1051–1066. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2669
Boyer RH, Mellquist AC, Williander M et al (2021) Three-dimensional product circularity. J Ind Ecol 25:824–833. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13109
Melella R, Di Ruocco G, Sorvillo A (2021) Circular construction process: Method for developing a selective, low CO2eq disassembly and demolition plan. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168815. Sustainability 13
Hapuwatte BM, Jawahir IS (2021) Closed-loop sustainable product design for circular economy. J Ind Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13154
Moreno M, los Rios C, Rowe Z et al (2016) A conceptual framework for circular design. Sustain (Switzerland) 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090937
Olofsson J, Börjesson P (2018) Residual biomass as resource– life-cycle environmental impact of wastes in circular resource systems. J Clean Prod 196:997–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.115
Sherwood J (2020) Closed-Loop Recycling of polymers using solvents remaking plastics for a circular economy. Johns MATTHEY Technol Rev 64:4–15. https://doi.org/10.1595/205651319X15574756736831
Baena-Moreno FM, Saché EL, Hurd Price CA et al (2021) From biogas upgrading to CO2utilization and waste recycling: a novel circular economy approach. J CO2 Utilization 47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2021.101496
Hayek FA (1945) The Use of Knowledge in Society. Am Econ Rev 35:519–530
Munaro MR, Tavares SF (2021) Materials passport’s review: challenges and opportunities toward a circular economy building sector. Built Environment Project and Asset Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-02-2020-0027
Adams KT, Osmani M, Thorpe T et al (2017) Circular economy in construction: Current awareness, challenges and enablers. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Waste and Resource Management 170:15–24. https://doi.org/10.1680/jwarm.16.00011
Blomsma F, Pieroni M, Kravchenko M et al (2019) Developing a circular strategies framework for manufacturing companies to support circular economy-oriented innovation. J Clean Prod 241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118271
Cong L, Zhao F, Sutherland JW (2019) A design method to improve end-of-use product value recovery for Circular Economy. J Mech Des Trans ASME 141. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4041574
Parajuly K, Wenzel H (2017) Potential for circular economy in household WEEE management. J Clean Prod 151:272–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.045
Rashid MI, Shahzad K (2021) Food waste recycling for compost production and its economic and environmental assessment as circular economy indicators of solid waste management. J Clean Prod 317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128467
Parchomenko A, Nelen D, Gillabel J et al (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
Scheepens AE, Vogtlander 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.2015.05.075
Shevchenko T, Kronenberg J, Danko Y et al (2021) Exploring the circularity potential regarding the multiple use of residual material. Clean Technol Environ Policy 23:2025–2036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02100-4
Corral-Marfil JA, Arimany-Serrat N, Hitchen EL et al (2021) Recycling Technology Innovation as a source of competitive advantage: the sustainable and Circular Business Model of a Bicentennial Company. Sustainability 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147723
Nußholz J, Nygaard Rasmussen F, Milios L (2019) Circular building materials: Carbon saving potential and the role of business model innovation and public policy. Resour Conserv Recycl 141:308–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.036
Nussholz JL (2017) Circular Business models: defining a Concept and framing an Emerging Research Field. Sustainability 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101810
Roos G (2014) Business model innovation to create and capture resource value in future circular material chains. Resources 3:248–274. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources3010248
Sanchez FA, Boudaoud H, Camargo M et al (2020) Plastic recycling in additive manufacturing: a systematic literature review and opportunities for the circular economy. J Clean Prod 264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121602
Jansen BW, van Stijn A, Gruis V et al (2020) A circular economy life cycle costing model (CE-LCC) for building components. Resour Conserv Recycl 161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104857
Chaudhari US, Lin Y, Thompson VS et al (2021) Systems Analysis Approach to Polyethylene Terephthalate and Olefin Plastics Supply Chains in the Circular Economy: A Review of Data Sets and Models. ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering 9:7403–7421. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c08622
Dobrota D, Dobrota G, Dobrescu T et al (2019) The redesigning of tires and the recycling process to maintain an efficient circular economy. Sustain (Switzerland) 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195204
Mikkilä M, Utanun P, Luhas J et al (2021) Sustainable circular bioeconomy—feasibility of recycled nutrients for biomass production within a pulp and paper integration in Indonesia, southeast asia. Sustain (Switzerland) 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810169
Rodrigo-González A, Grau-Grau A, Bel-Oms I (2021) Circular economy and value creation: sustainable finance with a real options approach. Sustain (Switzerland) 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147973
Rehberger M, Hiete M (2020) Allocation of environmental impacts in circular and cascade use of resources-incentive-driven allocation as a prerequisite for cascade persistence. Sustain (Switzerland) 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114366
Di Maio F, Rem PC, Francesco Di, Maio et al (2015) A Robust Indicator for promoting Circular Economy through Recycling. J Environ Prot 6:1095–1104. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2015.610096
Schenkel M, Caniëls MC, Krikke H et al (2015) Understanding value creation in closed loop supply chains– past findings and future directions. J Manuf Syst 37:729–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.04.009
Mishra JL, Hopkinson PG, Tidridge G (2018) Value creation from circular economy-led closed loop supply chains: a case study of fast-moving consumer goods. Prod Plann CONTROL 29:509–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1449245
Zhou Y, Stanchev P, Katsou E et al (2019) A circular economy use of recovered sludge cellulose in wood plastic composite production: recycling and eco-efficiency assessment. Waste Manag 99:42–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.08.037
DIN EN ISO 14045:2012 (2012) Environmental management– Eco-efficiency assessment of product systems– Principles, requirements and guidelines (ISO 14045:2012)
Vogtlander JG, Scheepens AE, Bocken N et al (2017) Combined analyses of costs, market value and eco-costs in circular business models: eco-efficient value creation in remanufacturing. J Remanuf 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13243-017-0031-9
Thakker V, Bakshi BR (2021) Toward sustainable circular economies: a computational framework for assessment and design. J Clean Prod 295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126353
Sandvik IM, Stubbs W (2019) Circular fashion supply chain through textile-to-textile recycling. J Fashion Mark Manage 23:366–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-04-2018-0058
Sehnem S, Campos L, Julkovski DJ et al (2019) Circular business models: level of maturity. Manag Decis 57:1043–1066. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2018-0844
Shevchenko T, Vavrek R, Danko Y et al (2020) Clarifying a circularity phenomenon in a circular economy under the notion of potential. Problemy Ekorozwoju 16:79–89
Urbinati A, Chiaroni D, Chiesa V (2017) Towards a new taxonomy of circular economy business models. J Clean Prod 168:487–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.047
Ada E, Sagnak M, Uzel RA et al (2021) Analysis of barriers to circularity for agricultural cooperatives in the digitalization era. Int J Productivity Perform Manage. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-12-2020-0689
Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y (2010) Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
Daou A, Mallat C, Chammas G et al (2020) The Ecocanvas as a business model canvas for a circular economy. J Clean Prod 258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120938
Elzinga R, Reike D, Negro SO et al (2020) Consumer acceptance of circular business models. J Clean Prod 254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.119988
Hvass KK, Pedersen ER (2019) Toward circular economy of fashion experiences from a brand’s product take-back initiative. J Fashion Mark Manage 23:345–365. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-04-2018-0059
Wagner MM, Heinzel T (2020) Human Perceptions of Recycled Textiles and Circular Fashion: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410599
Morioka SN, Bolis I, de Carvalho MM (2018) From an ideal dream towards reality analysis: proposing sustainable Value Exchange Matrix (SVEM) from systematic literature review on sustainable business models and face validation. J Clean Prod 178:76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.078
Huynh PH (2021) Enabling circular business models in the fashion industry: the role of digital innovation. Int J Productivity Perform Manage. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-12-2020-0683
Hedlund C, Stenmark P, Noaksson E et al (2020) More value from fewer resources: how to expand value stream mapping with ideas from circular economy. Int J Qual Service Sci 12:447–459. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-05-2019-0070
Braakman L, Bhochhibhoya S, de Graaf R (2021) Exploring the relationship between the level of circularity and the life cycle costs of a one-family house. Resour Conserv Recycl 164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105149
Hagelüken C, Lee-Shin JU, Carpentier A et al (2016) The EU circular economy and its relevance to metal recycling. Recycling 1:242–253. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling1020242
Formentini M, Secondi L, Ruini L et al (2021) Enablers and barriers to circular supply chain management: a decision-support tool in soft wheat bread production. J Enterp Inform Manage. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-02-2021-0069
Gandolfo A, Lupi L (2021) Circular economy, the transition of an incumbent focal firm: how to successfully reconcile environmental and economic sustainability? Bus Strategy Environ. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2803
Ozola ZU, Vesere R, Kalnins SN et al (2019) Paper Waste Recycling. Circular economy aspects. Environ Clim Technol 23:260–273. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2019-0094
Paletta A, Leal Filho W, Balogun A-L et al (2019) Barriers and challenges to plastics valorisation in the context of a circular economy: case studies from Italy. J Clean Prod 241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118149
Milios L, Matsumoto M (2019) Consumer perception of remanufactured automotive parts and policy implications for transitioning to a circular economy in Sweden. Sustain (Switzerland) 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226264
Baxter W, Aurisicchio M, Childs P (2017) Contaminated Interaction: another barrier to Circular Material flows. J Ind Ecol 21:507–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12612
Thorley J, Garza-Reyes JA, Anosike A (2019) The circular economy impact on small to medium enterprises. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 231:257–267. https://doi.org/10.2495/WM180241
Siderius T, Poldner K (2021) Reconsidering the Circular Economy Rebound effect: propositions from a case study of the Dutch Circular Textile Valley. J Clean Prod 293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125996
Umeda Y, Kitagawa K, Hirose Y et al (2020) Potential impacts of the European Union’s Circular Economy Policy on Japanese manufacturers. Int J Autom Technol 14:857–866. https://doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2020.p0857
Campbell-Johnston K, Friant MC, Thapa K et al (2020) How circular is your tyre: experiences with extended producer responsibility from a circular economy perspective. J Clean Prod 270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122042
Desing H, Braun G, Hischier R (2021) Resource pressure– A circular design method. Resour Conserv Recycl 164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105179
Kalmykova Y, Sadagopan M, Rosado L (2018) Circular economy - from review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resour Conserv Recycl 135:190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.034
Hahladakis JN, Iacovidou E (2018) Closing the loop on plastic packaging materials: what is quality and how does it affect their circularity? Sci Total Environ 630:1394–1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.330
Sauerwein M, Doubrovski E, Balkenende R et al (2019) Exploring the potential of additive manufacturing for product design in a circular economy. J Clean Prod 226:1138–1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.108
Eriksen MK, Damgaard A, Boldrin A et al (2019) Quality Assessment and Circularity Potential of Recovery Systems for Household Plastic Waste. J Ind Ecol 23:156–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12822
Bressanelli G, Saccani N, Perona M et al (2020) Towards circular economy in the household appliance industry: an overview of cases. Resources 9:1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9110128
Stegmann P, Londo M, Junginger M (2020) The circular bioeconomy: its elements and role in European bioeconomy clusters. Resour Conserv Recycling: X 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcrx.2019.100029
Martins AV, Godina R, Azevedo SG et al (2021) Towards the development of a model for circularity: the circular car as a case study. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101215
Hansen EG, Revellio F (2020) Circular value creation architectures: make, ally, buy, or laissez-faire. J Ind Ecol 24:1250–1273. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13016
Glogic E, Sonnemann G, Young SB (2021) Environmental trade-offs of downcycling in circular economy: combining life cycle assessment and material circularity indicator to inform circularity strategies for alkaline batteries. Sustain (Switzerland) 13:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031040
Moraga G, Huysveld S, de Meester S et al (2021) Development of circularity indicators based on the in-use occupation of materials. J Clean Prod 279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123889
Shamsuyeva M, Endres H-J (2021) Plastics in the context of the circular economy and sustainable plastics recycling: Comprehensive review on research development, standardization and market. Compos Part C: Open Access 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomc.2021.100168
Beylot A, Ardente F, Sala S et al (2021) Mineral resource dissipation in life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26:497–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01875-4
Hatzfeld T, Backes JG, Guenther E et al (2022) Modeling circularity as Functionality over Use-Time to reflect on circularity indicator challenges and identify new indicators for the circular economy. J Clean Prod 379:134797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134797
Charnley F, Tiwari D, Hutabarat W et al (2019) Simulation to enable a data-driven circular economy. Sustain (Switzerland) 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10023379
Kral U, Morf LS, Vyzinkarova D et al (2019) Cycles and sinks: two key elements of a circular economy. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0786-6
Simon B (2019) What are the most significant aspects of supporting the circular economy in the plastic industry? Resources. Conserv Recycling 141:299–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.044
Brouwer MT, van Velzen E, Ragaert K et al (2020) Technical limits in circularity for plastic packages. Sustain (Switzerland) 12:1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310021
Pinter E, Welle F, Mayrhofer E et al (2021) Circularity study on pet bottle-to-bottle recycling. Sustain (Switzerland) 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137370
Civancik-Uslu D, Puig R, Ferrer L et al (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.2018.12.076
Wagner F, Peeters JR, de Keyzer J et al (2019) Towards a more circular economy for WEEE plastics - part B: Assessment of the technical feasibility of recycling strategies. Waste Manag 96:206–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.07.035
DIN EN ISO 14044:2020 Environmental management– Life cycle assessment– Requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006 + Amd 1:2017 + Amd 2 (2020)
Nakamura S, Kondo Y (2018) Toward an integrated model of the circular economy: dynamic waste input–output. Resour Conserv Recycl 139:326–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.016
Alhazmi H, Shah S, Anwar MK et al (2021) Utilization of polymer concrete composites for a circular economy: a comparative review for assessment of recycling and waste utilization. Polymers 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13132135
Yu Y, Yazan DM, Bhochhibhoya S et al (2021) Towards Circular Economy through Industrial Symbiosis in the Dutch construction industry: a case of recycled concrete aggregates. J Clean Prod 293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126083
Klavins M, Bisters V, Burlakovs J (2018) Small scale gasification application and perspectives in Circular Economy. Environ Clim Technol 22:42–54. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2018-0003
Velvizhi G, Shanthakumar S, Das B et al (2020) Biodegradable and non-biodegradable fraction of municipal solid waste for multifaceted applications through a closed loop integrated refinery platform: paving a path towards circular economy. Sci Total Environ 731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138049
Zied DC, Sánchez JE, Noble R et al (2020) Use of spent mushroom substrate in new mushroom crops to promote the transition towards a circular economy. Agronomy 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091239
Spooner S, Davis C, Li Z (2020) Modelling the cumulative effect of scrap usage within a circular UK steel industry–residual element aggregation. Ironmaking Steelmaking 47:1100–1113. https://doi.org/10.1080/03019233.2020.1805276
Hussain A, Podgursky V, Antonov M et al (2021) TiCN coating tribology for the circular economy of textile industries. J Ind Text. https://doi.org/10.1177/15280837211025726
Subramanian K, Sarkar MK, Wang HM et al (2021) An overview of cotton and polyester, and their blended waste textile valorisation to value-added products: a circular economy approach - research trends, opportunities and challenges. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2021.1966254
Sauerwein M, Zlopasa J, Doubrovski Z et al (2020) Reprintable Paste-Based Materials for Additive Manufacturing in a Circular Economy. Sustainability 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198032
Niero M, Hauschild MZ, Hoffmeyer SB et al (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.12554
Franklin-Johnson E, Figge F, Canning L (2016) Resource duration as a managerial indicator for Circular Economy performance. J Clean Prod 133:589–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.023
Guerra BC, Leite F (2021) Circular economy in the construction industry: an overview of United States stakeholders’ awareness, major challenges, and enablers. Resour Conserv Recycl 170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105617
Muñoz VG, Muneta LM, Carrasco-Gallego R et al (2020) Evaluation of the circularity of recycled pla filaments for 3D printers. Appl Sci (Switzerland) 10:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10248967
Yang MY, Smart P, Kumar M et al (2018) Product-service systems business models for circular supply chains. Prod Plann CONTROL 29:498–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1449247
Franco MA (2019) A system dynamics approach to product design and business model strategies for the circular economy. J Clean Prod 241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118327
Saidani M, Yannou B, Leroy Y et al (2020) Dismantling, remanufacturing and recovering heavy vehicles in a circular economy—technico-economic and organisational lessons learnt from an industrial pilot study. Resour Conserv Recycl 156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104684
Bai CG, Sarkis J, Yin FF et al (2020) Sustainable supply chain flexibility and its relationship to circular economy-target performance. Int J Prod Res 58:5893–5910. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1661532
Marke A, Chan C, Taskin G et al (2020) Reducing e-waste in China’s mobile electronics industry: the application of the innovative circular business models. Asian Educ Dev Stud 9:591–610. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-03-2019-0052
Tanguay X, Essoua Essoua GG, Amor B (2021) Attributional and consequential life cycle assessments in a circular economy with integration of a quality indicator: a case study of cascading wood products. J Ind Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13167
Majeed MT, Luni T (2020) Renewable Energy, Circular Economy indicators and Environmental Quality: A Global evidence of 131 countries with heterogeneous income groups. Pakistan J Commer Social Sci 14:866–912
Garcia-Barragan JF, Eyckmans J, Rousseau S (2019) Defining and measuring the Circular Economy: a Mathematical Approach. Ecol Econ 157:369–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.003
Lee MK (2021) Plastic pollution mitigation-net plastic circularity through a standardized credit system in Asia. OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT 210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105733
Alhola K, Ryding SO, Salmenperä H et al (2019) Exploiting the potential of public procurement: opportunities for Circular Economy. J Ind Ecol 23:96–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12770
British Standards Institute (8001: (2017) Framework for implementing the principles of the Circular Economy in Organizations - Guide
Schulte A, Maga D, Thonemann N (2021) Combining Life Cycle Assessment and Circularity Assessment to Analyze Environmental impacts of the Medical Remanufacturing of Electrophysiology catheters. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020898. Sustainability 13
Ashby M, Vakhitova T (2018) Analyzing and measuring circularity-teaching and Industrial Tools by Granta Design. MRS Adv 3:1379–1386. https://doi.org/10.1557/adv.2018.293
Holappa L, Kekkonen M, Jokilaakso A et al (2021) A review of Circular Economy prospects for Stainless steelmaking slags. J Sustainable Metall 7:806–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40831-021-00392-w
Horodytska O, Kiritsis D, Fullana A (2020) Upcycling of printed plastic films: LCA analysis and effects on the circular economy. J Clean Prod 268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122138
Juan R, Paredes B, García-Muñoz RA et al (2021) Quantification of PP contamination in recycled PE by TREF analysis for improved the quality and circularity of plastics. Polym Test 100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2021.107273
Kanwal Q, Li J, Zeng X (2021) Mapping Recyclability of Industrial Waste for Anthropogenic Circularity: a Circular Economy Approach. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c04139
Stotz PM, Niero M, Bey N et al (2017) Environmental screening of novel technologies to increase material circularity: a case study on aluminium cans. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:96–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.013
Warrings R, Fellner J (2018) Current status of circularity for aluminum from household waste in Austria. Waste Manag 76:217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.034
Zerbino P, Stefanini A, Aloini D et al (2021) Curling linearity into circularity: the benefits of formal scavenging in closed-loop settings. Int J Prod Econ 240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108246
Kleinhans K, Demets R, Dewulf J et al (2021) Non-household end-use plastics: the ‘forgotten’ plastics for the circular economy. Curr Opin Chem Eng 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2021.100680
Eriksen MK, Pivnenko K, Faraca G et al (2020) Dynamic material Flow Analysis of PET, PE, and PP flows in Europe: evaluation of the potential for Circular Economy. Environ Sci Technol 54:16166–16175. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c03435
Haupt M, Hellweg S (2019) Measuring the environmental sustainability of a circular economy. Environ Sustain Indic 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2019.100005
Levänen J, Lyytinen T, Gatica S (2018) Modelling the interplay between institutions and circular Economy Business models: a Case Study of Battery Recycling in Finland and Chile. Ecol Econ 154:373–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.018
Zhao SX, Schmidt S, Qin W et al (2020) Towards the circular nitrogen economy - A global meta-analysis of composting technologies reveals much potential for mitigating nitrogen losses. Sci Total Environ 704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135401
Sun LY, Wang YX, Hua GW et al (2020) Virgin or recycled? Optimal pricing of 3D printing platform and material suppliers in a closed-loop competitive circular supply chain. Resour Conserv Recycl 162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105035
Aguilar-Hernandez GA, Sigüenza-Sanchez CP, Donati F et al (2018) Assessing circularity interventions: a review of EEIOA-based studies. J Economic Struct 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-018-0113-3
Lin K-P, Yu C-M, Chen K-S (2019) Production data analysis system using novel process capability indices-based circular economy. Industrial Manage Data Syst 119:1655–1668. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2019-0166
Sassanelli C, Rosa P, Rocca R et al (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
Santagata R, Ripa M, Genovese A et al (2021) Food waste recovery pathways: challenges and opportunities for an emerging bio-based circular economy. A systematic review and an assessment. J Clean Prod 286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125490
Padilla-Rivera A, Russo-Garrido S, Merveille N (2020) Addressing the Social aspects of a circular economy: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 12:7912. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197912
Acknowledgements
Berfin Bayram and Linda Deserno are funded by PhD-program “Forschungskolleg Verbund.NRW2”, supported by the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Research North Rhine-Westphalian.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Berfin Bayram: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization, Project administration. Linda Deserno : Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization, Project administration. Kathrin Greiff: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing - Review & Editing, Funding acquisition.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
Not applicable.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bayram, B., Deserno, L. & Greiff, K. Product Quality in the Circular Economy: A Systematic Review of its Definition and Contexts in Scientific Literature. Circ.Econ.Sust. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-024-00396-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-024-00396-0