In the last twenty years, the European Union (EU) has enhanced Waste Management (WM) strategies toward Circular Economy (CE). Starting from the previous analysis carried out by Fabrizi and Sospiro (Waste Management in Europe: A Comparative Study of the main EU countries: Methodology and Evaluation of Local Waste Management System, Lambert Publisher, Saarbücken, Germany, 2017), this article analyses firstly EU Member States (MSs) Roadmap toward Sustainable Waste Management (SWM) and secondly to CE. The research relied on Kirchherr et al. (Kirchherr in Ecological Economics 150:264–272, 2018) study which identified four barriers to CE (cultural, regulatory, market failure, and technological). The regulatory framework has been analysed. Four case studies (France, FR, Germany, DE, Italy, IT, the Netherlands, NL) have been selected to investigate: criteria, methodologies, policies, implementation and outcomes on SWM at national level. In addition, given MSs coordination at EU level the research aimed at analysing whether is there any convergence in terms of policies and achievements. The study considered recent findings on CE, Eurostat data, and Eurostat Circular Material Use (CMU) indicator. The analysis revealed SWM positive results, which seem to confirm a certain degree of convergence between EU-MSs that consists in a positive cascade mechanism from advanced toward less advanced MSs. In spite of this, EU countries need a further step in order to close materials’ loops. Larger quantity of Secondary Raw Materials (SRMs) should return to manufacture, and this requires stronger intervention that goes beyond the waste sector. In light of this, the EU Commission recently entrusted the Joint Research Centre (JRC) to assess and compare the environmental impacts of alternative feedstock for plastic products. This reveals EU attempt to re-balance the intervention on CE, by striving new products’ design approaches.
This is a preview of subscription content,to check access.
Access this article
Similar content being viewed by others
According to Dir 2018/851 corresponds to “mixed waste and separately collected waste from households, and other sources that are similar to it, for nature and composition, such as “retail, administration, education, health services, accommodation and food services.”.
This derives from its heterogeneous nature, the potential impact on the environment and human health, the influential political profile of the topic, and its connection to consumption patterns.
1) Paper, metal, plastic and glass household waste; (2) Paper, metal, plastic, glass household waste and other single types of household waste or of similar waste from other origins; (3) Household waste; (4) Municipal waste.
According to (EEA, 2016b), French MSW is defined as: street sweeping; sewage sludge (not included in Eurostat data); garden and park waste from municipal sources; household waste (included waste delivered to recycling centres, bulky items, household hazardous waste and mixed and separately collected household waste); trade waste similar in nature to household waste.
French collection services rely on three financing systems, depending on municipalities’ decisions. The TEOM, Taxe d’enlèvement des ordures ménagères, is paid by households but not strictly related to the use of WM services. It depends on councils’ discretion the decision to fund the service by using this tax. The REOM, Redevance d’enlèvement des ordures ménagères, is related to the use of WM services, and it is calculated on families composition, residential space or waste volumes. Finally, the municipal budget covers certain WM costs.
The Triman Logo is a pictogram represented on products’ packaging or directly on products that indicates how to sort them correctly.
MSW is defined as «waste from private households and similar institutions, as well as domestic-type waste produced by trade and industry». It includes «household waste, separately collected recoverable materials (glass and paper, packaging waste, organic waste and bulky waste)» (Dornack, 2017).
The collection system is financed by citizens’ fees (household residual and bio-waste) while EPR schemes provide funds for the DTD and collection point of packaging waste (EEA, 2016c).
It measures the relation between GDP growth and net waste volume increase.
The Environmental Code has established that MWM shall be organized in regional plans and implemented by ATOs. They are, indeed, the managerial units which implement the plan designed by regions, and which ensure the attainment of separate collection targets. As a consequence, in cases in which the minimum percentages of waste collection are not achieved, ATOs will be fined. Specifically, «the payment has to be divided among the municipalities whose bad performances did not allow the ATO to meet the goal» (EEA, 2016c).
The DL152/2006 Article 184 (c 2) also contains the definition of MSW as household waste included bulky waste, non-hazardous waste from similar institutions, waste from gardens, public parks and streets.
The Landfill Dir was incorporated into Italian law in 2003 with 18 months of delay.
173 kg/person for 2008; 115 kg/person for 2011; 81 kg/person for 2018.
The definition of MSW in the Netherlands mainly corresponds to household waste, which is separated in different categories, such as: vegetable, fruits, food, garden waste, small chemical residues (batteries), paper, bottles and glass, textile, furniture, wood, and metal (EEA, 2016a).
On the one side, the collection of MSW is funded by local taxation. Municipal charging schemes has been a key measure to favour separate collection among citizens. For example, since 2015 the 40% of municipalities have introduced the PAYT system (Bilitewsky 2017). Other cities have instituted reverse-collection schemes, according to which the DTD collection of recyclable is intensified and, by contrast, the collection of residual waste is reduced or handled only through amenity services (Bilitewsky 2017). On the other side, the collection of municipal packaging waste is financed by fees deriving from EPR schemes. In 2005, indeed, the Dutch Packaging Decree conferred to producers the responsibility of the separate collection and recycling of end-of-life products’ packages. In this concern, in 2013 was introduced an EPR scheme for the management of separate collection of packaging waste (Bilitewsky 2017).
Recyclable waste, which is collected through comingled systems, is subsequently sorted by recycling facilities.
For example, in 2005 the German introduction of a landfill ban for untreated waste, mostly prevented the exportation of Dutch waste, which ended into incinerators. Then, in 2010, the EU defined a distinction between incineration for disposal and energy recovery. This allowed Dutch incineration plants, which produced heat and electricity, to be recognized as recovery installations. Finally, EU introduction of renewable energy targets enhanced the value of thermal recycling with energy recovery for the achievement of the national objectives (OECD, 2016).
Eurostat calculated CMU referring to official statistics reported by MSs under legal commitment. There are comprised, waste statistics (data extracted from: env_wastrt), economy-wide material flow accounts (EW-MFA, data extracted from: environmental-economic accounts), and trade statistics (data extracted from: COMEXT website (Eurostat, 2018b).
Exclusion of energy recovery and backfilling.
Further details on the project are available on http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/?page_id=1862.
Biodegradable municipal waste
Circular material us
Extended producer responsibility
Gross domestic product
Green public procurement
Joint research centre
Ministero dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio e del mare
Ministero dello sviluppo economico
Municipal solid waste
Municipal solid waste management
Municipal waste management
National waste management plans
Secondary raw materials
Sustainable waste management
Agovino, M., & Garofalo, A. (2016). Effects of the environmental regulation on separate waste collection dynamics: Empirical evidence from Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 30–40.
Ambiente Italia Work Group. (2008). Executive Summary taken from "Eco-Efficient Recycling: Economic, Environmental and Energetic performance perspective”. Milano: Edizioni Ambiente.
Bilitewsky, B. 2017 40 years of source separation in Germany and its Future in Source Separation and Recycling, Springer, pp. 5–319
BMU (2018) Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, “Waste Management in Germany BMU, Division WR II 1, Dr Andreas Jaron, Christina Kossmann, Germany
Buclet, N. and Godard, O. (2000) Municipal Waste Management in France in Municipal Waste Management in Europe: a Comparative study in building regimes, Environment & Management
Castillo-Giméneza, J., Montañés, A., & Picazo-tadeo, A. J. (2019). Performance and convergence in municipal waste treatment in the European Union. Waste Management, 85, 222–231.
Cicconi, P. (2020). Eco-design and Eco-materials: An interactive and collaborative approach. Sustainable Materials and Technology, 23, e00135.
Cobo, S., & Antonio Dominguez-Ramos, A. I. (2018). From linear to circular integrated waste management systems: A review of methodological approaches. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 135, 279–295.
Cox, M., Nugteren, H., & Janssen-Jurkovičová, M. (2008). Combustion Residues: current novel and renewable applications. UK: Wiley.
Di Foggia, G., & Beccarello, M. (2021). Designing waste management systems to meet circular economy goals: The Italian case. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, 1074–1083.
Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products
Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste
Directive (EU) 2018/850 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste
Directive (EU) 2018/ 852 of The European Parliament and of The Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste
Domenecha, T., & Bahn-Walkowiakb, B. (2018). Transition towards a resource efficient circular economy in Europe: policy lessons from the EU and the member States. Ecological Economics, 155, 7–19.
Dornack, C. (2017). Waste Policy for Source Separation in Germany in Source Separation and Recycling, Springer, pp. 5–319.
E Commission. (2017). Implementation of the CE Action Plan”, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM (2017) 33 final) European Commission
EEA. (2016a). Municipal Waste Management: Italy
EEA. (2016b). «Municipal waste management: The Netherlands»
EEA. (2016c). Municipal Waste Management: France
EEA. (2016d). Municipal Waste Management: Germany
EIONET. (2012). Faactsheet for Netherlands. Available: https://scp.eionet.europa.eu/facts/factsheets_waste/2009_edition/factsheet?country=NL.. [Accessed November 2018].
EPRS. (2014). Briefing: Turning waste into a resource: moving towards a 'CE, (Prepared by Didier Bourguignon)
European Commission. (2018). A European strategy for plastics in a circular economy. (Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions No.
European Commission. (2016). A European Agenda for the collaborative economy. (Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions No.
European Commission. (2015a). Closing the Loop - An EU action plan for the circular economy (Communication From the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions No.
European Commission. (2015b). Implementation of the circular economy action plan. (Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions No.
European Commission. (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives.
Eurostat, 2018 Circular Material Use rate: calculation methods
Eurostat, 2018 Municipal waste statistics data extracted July
Eurostat, 2019 «Municipal waste by waste management operations »
Eurostat, (2019) Generation of waste by waste category. [Online]
Fabrizi, S., & Sospiro, P. (2017). Waste management in Europe: A comparative study of the main EU countries: Methodology and evaluation of local waste management system. Lambert Publisher.
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, 2019 «Background: the development of waste policy in Germany, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.bmu.de/en/topics/water-waste-soil/waste-management/waste-policy/
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2019) The packaging Act has entered into force: less packaging, more transparency and recycling. [Online]. Available: https://www.bmu.de/en/press/press-releases/..
Fellner, J., Lederer, J., Scharff, C., & Laner, D. (2017). Present potential limitations of a Circular Economy with respect to primary raw material demand. Circular Economy, 21(3), 494–497.
Halkos, G., & Kleoniki, N. P. (2018). Assessing 28 EU member states’ environmental efficiency in national waste generation with DEA. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, 209–521.
Hofmann, F. (2019). Circular business models: Business approach as driver or obstructer of sustainability transition ? Journal of Cleaner Production, 224, 361–374.
Joint Research Centre 2018 «Technical Report, Environmental sustainability assessment comparing through the means of lifecycle assessment the potential environmental impacts of the use of alternative feedstock for plastic articles in comparison to using current feedstock ».
Kalmykova, Y., Sadagopan, M., & Rosado, L. (2018). Circular Economy: From review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, 135, 190–201.
Kirchherr, J., et al. (2018). Barriers to the circular economy: Evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecological Economics, 150, 264–272.
Korhonen, J., Antero, H., & Jyri, S. (2018). Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics, 143, 37–46.
Lewis, H., Downes, J., V. K., & Young, G. (2017) Food waste opportunities within the food wholesale and retail sectors. Prepared for the NSW Environment Protection Authority by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney
Lieder, M., & Rashid, A. (2016). Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive review in the context of manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 115, 36–51.
Ministere de la transition ecologique et solidaire, 2018 Roadmap for the Circular Economy: 50 measures for a 100% circular economy
Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del territorio e del mare 2017 Economico, Ministero dello Sviluppo, “Towards a model of Circular Economy for Italy: Overview and Strategy Framework
Ministero dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio e del mare (2017) Economia circolare: l’economia circolare in Italia. [Online]. Available: https://www.minambiente.it/pagina/leconomia-circolare-italia
Ministry of the Infrastructure and Environment, 2013 Factsheet for waste and resource management. [Online]. Available: https://rwsenvironment.eu/subjects/from-waste-resources/downloads-waste-and/factsheet-waste/..
Nelles, M., Gruenes, J., & Morscheck, G. (2016). Waste Management in Germany: development to a sustainable Circular Economy? Procedia Environmental Sciences, 115, 6–14.
Nußholz, L. J. (2018). A circular business model mapping tool for creating value from prolonged product lifetime and closed material loops. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 185–194.
OECD, 2016 Environmental performance review: The Netherlands »
Schroeder, P., Anggraeni, K., & Weber, U. (2018). The Relevance of circular economy practices to the sustainable development goals. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 1, 1–19.
Stahel, W. (2016). Circular economy. Nature, 531, 435–438.
Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, J. (2007). The anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature. AMBIO A Journal of the Human Environment, 36(8), 614–621.
Testa, F., Iraldo, F., Frey, M., & Daddi, T. (2011). What factors influence the uptake of GPP (Green Public Procurement) practices? New evidence from an Italian survey. Ecological Economics, 82, 88–96.
The Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, Ministry of Economic Affairs (2016) “Government-wide programme for a Circular Economy " A Circular Economy in the Netherlands by 2050
Van Buren, N., et al. (2016). Towards a circular economy: the role of Dutch logistic industries and governments. Sustainability, 8(7), 647.
Weghmann, V. (2017). Waste Management in Europe. Goods jobs in the circular economy,» Commissioned by European Public Service Union (EPSO)
Wilts, H. (2016). Germany on the road to a Circular Economy WISO Diskurs
Wilts, H. (2017). Key challenges for transformations towards a circular economy: The Status Quo in Germany. International Journal of Waste Resources, 07(01), 1–5.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Chioatto, E., Sospiro, P. Transition from waste management to circular economy: the European Union roadmap. Environ Dev Sustain 25, 249–276 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02050-3