Circularity at Macro Level: The Urban and National Perspectives

Abstract

The CE is mainly conceived as a response to multiple global environmental and social challenges, including climate change and resource scarcity. This chapter first presents an overview of what entails the adoption of CE in cities. Later, CE in other macro-level systems (such as nations and wider areas) and the necessity for circularity assessment during the transition towards CE are discussed. From a global perspective, cities play a crucial role in contributing to tackle the climate challenges given the high consumption of energy and materials. The discussion elaborates on assessment frameworks and indicators for monitoring and evaluating the progress towards the CE at the city and regional/national/supra-national (e.g. The EU)/global levels. Case studies of Rotterdam and Paris are provided to show how cities have designed their circular plans by analyzing their strategies, tools, and performance indicators. The monitoring framework implemented by the EU, to monitor the transition to CE in its member states is also analyzed. The chapter concludes by pointing out the importance of promoting preventive measures to enhance the circularity and broader assessment framework that captures the social dimension of the CE.

1 Introduction

The interest in Circular Economy (CE) as a concept and model of economic system is growing faster than ever all over the world [1]. The CE is considered as one of the pillars of response to pressing environmental issues [2, 3] and the declared climate emergency [4] as well as a tool for establishing sustainable development [2, 5]. The CE promotes changes in the whole society and its subsystems (economic, political, cultural, technical-technological). In the economic subsystem, resources (materials, waste, energy) entering into production and consumption activities should be (according to CE) used more efficiently by narrowing, slowing and closing resources loops [6]. The CE advocates the principles of:

• designing out waste and pollution;

• prolonging the use/value of materials and products via the most suitable strategies;

• regenerating the natural (eco) systems, by creating a better balance with human activities and their conurbations.¹

In recent years, the EU, China and Japan being pioneers in adopting circular strategies [7, 8], have continued to guide the process of transition towards CE, and many other countries are beginning to follow in their footsteps.^2,3 Programs, policies and legislation have been adopted to pursue the CE goal and accelerate the transition [7,8,9,10,11,12]. While cities such as Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels, London, and Paris are adopting circular strategies city-wide, other countries (such as China) are aiming more directly at sector integration (such as industrial parks, civic waste) and mapping circularity⁴ according to their development pattern [7]. The authors’ opinion is that the process of gradual transition from the linear to the CE at all macro levels (cities, regions, nations, and supra-national institutions) has begun. Therefore, monitoring and evaluating the progress towards CE and the effects of circular strategies on a large/macro scale (cities and countries) is necessary. Several assessment tools and indicators have evolved to be the most common methods of choice, for monitoring the CE implementations at the macro level [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22] such as-

• Material Flow Accounting (MFA) [23, 24],

• Input Output Analysis, and

• LCA [13, 14, 17, 18, 25, 26].

In some cases, these methods are combined by applying e.g., MFA with LCA as well as with Life Cycle Costing [27] and Social LCA [25]. Additionally, MFA is suggested in combination with EMergy Accounting (EMA) [28, 29]. The latter is also proposed individually, to monitor and evaluate the CE implementations for their effects on the wider dimension of the Biosphere, accounting for the total energy required, directly or indirectly, to make a given product or support a flow [30].

In this chapter we mainly focus on indicators for monitoring and evaluating the transition to CE at the macro level, that is, creating an overview of how well the principles of CE (reduce, repair, reuse, recover, remanufacturing, and recycle) are implemented in the different types of macro-systems. The discussion begins with the transition to CE within cities, highlighting the importance of cities in a global society—both as cradles of opportunities and positive change, as well as centers of critical challenges for more sustainable development. Then, a detailed discussion on indicators for measuring CE in cities is presented, supported by two case studies of circular cities: Rotterdam (Netherlands) and Paris (France). An overview of indicators developed by the EU for monitoring CE in the whole EU, as well as within each of its member states is provided. The essential elements useful for addressing CE within macro-level systems (cities, regions, nations, economic blocks) are highlighted in the conclusion.

2 Transition to Circular Cities

Cities can be defined as permanent and densely populated spatial systems with administrative defined boundaries where the population is mainly employed in non-agricultural activities [31]. However, in recent years, there are many forms of urban agriculture developing in cities [32,33,34,35]. According to the UN statistics, currently, about 50% of the global population live in cities and this figure is expected to double by 2050.⁵ Over the years, the concentration of economic and industrial activities in the cities or their proximities has been a catalyst to high migration of people from rural to urban areas attracted by job and wealth opportunities. Currently, cities and metropolitan areas contribute to generating about 60% of global gross domestic product (GDP).⁶

Cities are confronted with many challenges due to this high concentration of human and economic activities. The population clustering adversely affects the urban environment, causing poor air quality, water pollution and other environmental issues^7,8 [36]. Moreover, the high consumption of non-renewable energy (a few forms of fossil fuels in particular) in cities generates significant quantities of greenhouse gases (GHGs) making cities one of the main contributors to climate change [37]. According to the IPCC, climate change is mainly an energy challenge as energy use accounts for over two-thirds of GHGs that cause the alteration of the natural “greenhouse effect”.⁹ Even though the transition to cleaner energy is on course worldwide, it has not yet reached the level required to mitigate climate change and the ongoing worsening of that phenomenon. Therefore, a greater acceleration of overall actions towards wider use of clean energy is critically required. By implementing CE principles, cities have the chance to provide a significant contribution to the energy transition in transport and other industrial systems and better resource utilization in both production and consumption activities. Cities can lead to regenerating the natural systems in the urban environments and the global environment.¹⁰

A possible definition of a circular city can be: “A circular city is a city that practices CE principles to close resource loops, in partnership with the city’s stakeholders (citizens, community, business, and knowledge stakeholders), to realize its vision of a future-proof city” [38]. This definition focuses both on the capability of cities to “closing the loop” (represented in Fig. 3.1) and managing the implementation of reverse logistics for the reuse, repair and remanufacturing of products. It also focuses on the features of CE as a participative process, promoting social innovation and responsibility of all the stakeholders in the city [38]. Although the transitioning to CE can be with different goals (such as sustainable development, economic benefits or adhering to the regulations), the key areas for intervention and tools for achieving circularity are common [11]. A strong cooperation among all the stakeholders is the key factor within the shared vision of sustainability and circularity in the city. The decisions in this view have a local dimension but their effects can also be global¹¹ [39]!

Fig. 3.1

Adapted from [40]. Copyright, 2020 Springer Nature

Schematic representation of a circular city with various loops representing the circularity of water, energy, nutrients, and reusable materials.

So far, the EU, including the European Investment Bank,¹² and international institutions such as the UN (within the UN’s Global Initiatives for Resource Efficient Cities¹³) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)¹⁴ have developed many initiatives for supporting the transition towards sustainability and circularity in cities, including guidance for step-by-step implementation of the CE (adapted from the European Investment Bank, 2018 (see Footnote 12)) as outlined below.

• Plan (see Footnote 12)

  • 1. Characterize and analyze local context and resource flows, and identify idle assets

  • 2. conceptualize options and prioritize among sectors with circular potential

  • 3. craft a circular vision and strategy with clear circular goals and targets.

• Act (see Footnote 12)

  • 4. Close loops by connecting waste/residue/water/heat generation with off-takers

  • 5. consider options for extending use and life of idle assets and products

  • 6. construct and procure circular buildings, energy and mobility systems

  • 7. conduct hlcircular experimentation—address urban problems with circular solutions

  • 8. catalyse circular developments through regulation, incentives and financing;

  • 9. create markets and demand for circular products and services—be a launching customer

  • 10. capitalize on new ICT tools supporting circular business models.

• Mobilise/Monitor (see Footnote 12)

  • 11. Coach and educate citizens, businesses, civil society and media

  • 12. confront and challenge linear inertia, stressing linear risks/highlighting circular opportunities

  • 13. connect and facilitate cooperation among circular stakeholders

  • 14. contact and learn from circular pioneers and champions

  • 15. communicate on circular progress based on monitoring.

Indicator frameworks for monitoring urban circularity have been proposed by the above-mentioned institutions. The EU Indicator framework for CE is intended for both the national and regional scales and can be applied for building city-level indicators. It consists of indicators for each thematic area such as production and consumption, waste management, secondary raw materials, competitiveness, and innovation¹⁵ (In Sect. 3.6, the EU indicator framework is discussed briefly). Moreover, representative organizations involved in the CE transition (e.g., Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation) are supporting city leaders in embedding the CE in their urban plans and policies.¹⁶

Many cities worldwide have already adopted plans and strategies for CE [11, 15, 41,42,43] that also include monitoring frameworks and indicators [15, 44, 45]. Recent literature [11] points out the need for improving the adopted frameworks for circular cities in terms of both programs and indicators. In some cases, cities have CE programs but lack indicators, whereas in other cases the indicators built for the national and regional scale are adapted for the city scale [11]. In this view, the UN emphasizes the importance of measuring the progress towards CE, by focusing not only on conventional indicators, capturing the contribution to economic growth, or on materials and solid waste, but also on people and the qualitative dimension of their wellbeing (noting to give particular attention to minorities and (other) vulnerable subjects of the population).¹⁷

As discussed in Chap. 1, the UN’s proposition for circularity assessment includes social factors along with the environmental and governance counterparts. These three dimensions also appear in the UN’s sustainable development initiatives. For example, (i) in the case of mobility, cities should be redesigned, having the people at their center rather than vehicles; (ii) investments should be oriented towards zero-carbon public transport, footpaths, protected paths, and other special routes for walking and biking.¹⁸ In this regard, Paris is planning to become a “15-minute city”. Everything a typical citizen needs will never be more than 15 min away from their home by public transport or walking/cycling. Such an approach developed by Moreno aims to reduce the use of fuel-based transport and the resulting CO₂ emissions and other pollutants leading to a better urban air quality.¹⁹

The need for relying on broader indicators is in agreement with the targets of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for achieving their SDGs [45]. Undoubtedly, the shortcomings related to indicators are a part of the initial stage of the development of these tools. Further efforts by the institutions, cities, and the relevant stakeholders and communities (such as policymakers, universities, citizens, non-profit organization, and companies) are needed along with learning from experimenting, international experiences, and best practices, as new and improved indicators are developed.²⁰

3 Indicators for Measuring Urban Circularity

Table 3.1 provides a comprehensive set of indicators regarding transiting to a CE developed by the European circular cities [15] and Chinese cities[10]. The indicators are classified according to the dimension (e.g., environmental, economic, or social) as well as the specific area within each dimension.

Table 3.1 Indicators of the following circular cities or cities in transition to CE: London, Paris, Rotterdam, Maribor, Prague, Amsterdam, Malmö, Glasgow, Marseille, Kawasaki, Antwerp, Brussel, Luibljana, Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, and Dalian. Source Elaboration from [10, 15]

From Table 3.1 (elaborated from [10, 15]), it’s evident that there are a few common indicators included in the monitoring frameworks of the 13 circular cities as listed below-

• Amount or percentage of recycled material (Tons/year or %/year) used by 4 circular cities (London, Rotterdam, Maribor, Ljubljana),

• CO₂ emissions saved/ GHG emissions saved used by 8 circular cities (London, Glasgow, Marseille, Prague, Malmo, Gothenburg, Kawasaki),

• Amount or percentage of waste avoided used by 9 circular cities (London, Glasgow, Prague, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Paris, Maribor, Malmö, Gothenburg), and

• Number or percentage of new jobs from CE, the share of circular jobs, number of green jobs... used by 12 circular cities (London, Marseille, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Paris, Glasgow, Maribor, Prague, Ljubljana, Kawasaki).

4 Case Study I: Circular Rotterdam

Rotterdam is the second biggest city in the Netherlands, situated in the densely populated Holland region and known for having the largest port in Europe and the 10th largest globally. In 2018, an extensive report on the city’s material flows and its potential to transit to a CE was released.²¹ They found that in 2018, roughly 10% of the city was circular (the national average being 8.1%) and about 22% of the city’s solid waste was recycled (and most of the remaining solid waste is incinerated). Four sectors were identified that have the best potential for reducing the raw material consumption of the city and its population.

First, there is the Agri-Food and Green Flows sector. With 14% of food entering the city being wasted (on average this amounts to 62 kg of food per person per year), food waste is identified as one of the key issues to tackle for reducing the city’s environmental footprint and material consumption. Second, there is the construction sector which is responsible for much of the city’s waste production, with about 395 kilotons of waste a year, and the logistics in this sector are one of the major contributors to the air pollution within the city. Healthcare is also identified as one of the most critical sectors, though perhaps not the most logical choice for making supply chains circular. The report identifies this sector as having a large potential for reducing material consumption by preventing the need for healthcare/medication (e.g. through promoting healthier lifestyles, reducing pollution, but also by moving healthcare closer to home and reducing frequent hospital visits). Lastly, the consumer goods sector is identified, being one of the larger users of metal (having a similarly sized value to total metal use in construction) to be having a high potential for better value retention as identified from the material flow analysis. These sectors together are responsible for 60% of the city’s waste generation and 36.7% of employment at the time of the report.

The report on material flows marked the starting point for the city’s ambition to reduce half of the raw material consumption by 2030 and to be mostly completely circular by 2050.²² A broad toolset is employed, based around the main themes of raising awareness and anchoring (Fig. 3.2). Much of the efforts are aimed at supporting bottom-up activities originating from entrepreneurs and existing businesses, and cooperating with the port authorities and the Erasmus University. A portal is also provided to spread news regarding the local CE and to provide an overview of all initiatives undertaken by local business and citizens to spread awareness.²³

Fig. 3.2

Reproduced with permission (see Footnote 22); Copyright the Government of the Netherlands

Rotterdam’s circular aspirations at a glance, as represented in the Rotterdam Circularity Programme 2019-2023 (see Footnote 22).

5 Case Study II: Circular Paris

In line with other cities in the EU, the capital of France, Paris, has officially committed to implementing the CE model since the year 2015. The authorities of the city of Paris with other local authorities of the Greater Paris metropolis organized the General Assembly on the CE. The assembly proceedings led to the publication of a White Paper on the CE. The paper identifies practical proposals in terms of actions and innovative solutions to be applied in the metropolitan territory for pursuing its sustainable development goals.²⁴

The CE is part of a larger commitment of the city towards the development of a sustainable, cohesive, responsible, and resilient city. Paris had already adopted some actions (see Footnote 24) in 2014, embedding CE principles such as:

• The zero waste path, aimed to reduce the amount of waste;

• improve recycling and avoiding landfilling;

• limit energy recovery to only non-recyclable/non-reusable waste;

• collection of organic waste at the source.

Moreover, within a French national project, Paris had committed to reduce household and similar waste by 10% by the year 2020. In January 2017, Paris adopted a compost plan that included the sorting of waste at the source and the door-to-door collection of household food waste. The city is strongly involved in fighting food wastage by 2025 as promoted in a strategic plan of 2015, containing practical actions identified by consulting local and public stakeholders.

Paris had also started efforts on the public procurement side by the end of 2015, through the initiative of the transnational procurement group that cooperates with several European cities. In February 2016, Paris adopted a responsible public procurement scheme where CE is an important part of the scheme. The scheme’s CE principles are indirectly reflected in the commitment of the city to newly defined criteria related to resource efficiency in its public procurement. Additionally, the Paris Climate and Energy Action Plan included many factors common with CE, with targets that are more ambitious than the National and European targets. The city aimed to reduce energy consumption by 25%, and increase consumption of renewable energy by 25% by 2020 (see Footnote 24).

Another area addressed within the envisioned CE perspectives and principles of Paris, has been the re-industrialization of the city by encouraging local production that could fit local needs better and reduce the consumption of materials and energy. In this view, networks for connecting stakeholders have been created (e.g., business and employment centers), logistics projects such as the distribution hubs in the periphery of Paris have been launched, and there is added support to innovation by businesses and research projects. The city also recommends the development of river and rail transport, the growth of innovation hubs, product eco-design and repair, energy-efficient building renovation, the creation of material recovery platforms, and the implementation of short supply chains. Further, the city of Paris organized dedicated events, announcing its goals about the creation of fab labs, maker spaces, and other similar production spaces in the city (see Footnote 24).

The CE Plan of Paris identifies some important CE drivers and recognizes CE as a new approach. It has become part of a more comprehensive territorial project that involves the development of new technologies, new modes of organization between the stakeholders and related sectors, new tools of social innovation as well as new economic models such as stimulating short supply chains. Having a functional and collaborative economy has become a key component. According to this plan, the CE approach needs to be based on the following ten actions (see Footnote 24):

• 1. A solid territorial plan with specific targets and goals, coherent with other municipal plans, shared and clear for all the stakeholders, and regularly monitored through indicators

• 2. governance mechanisms involving cooperation between the stakeholders in different sectors and between all stakeholders from public, private, and non-profit sectors

• 3. cross-cutting organizations capable of adopting more integrated and systemic territory management approaches

• 4. tools for managing the complexity in addition to the adopted ‘Paris urban metabolism’ web platform

• 5. the role of users and their collaboration in the design of service innovations

• 6. the adoption of an explorative approach to innovations inclusive of their testing, evaluation of operativity, acceptability, and costs

• 7. an adequate legal framework useful to promote the CE, guaranteeing public-private cooperation and the removal of barriers hampering innovations in the CE transition

• 8. the existence of incentive-based funding to encourage innovations in the area of CE

• 9. assessment and organization of CE innovations for their wider application

• 10. effective and educational communication related to the CE actions.

The Paris CE Plan also presents the following six indicators to measure the impacts of the CE Plan:

• 1. Tons of waste avoided by means of repair, reuse, recovery, and recycling activities (Tons/year),

• 2. Tons of waste avoided (Tons/year),

• 3. Reduction of the size of urban metabolism (input and output flows) (%),

• 4. Percentage increase in material recovery and organic recovery in Paris (%),

• 5. number of jobs created,

• 6. value creation from the development of CE models.

An overview of the CE actions as taken by the municipality of Paris is presented in the below list, which is modified from the Paris CE Plan 2017–2020 (see Footnote 24).

• 1. Recovery of green waste

  • i recycling of wood waste from green spaces;

  • ii recovery of Christmas trees.

• 2. Recovery of materials (from construction and public works)

  • iii recycling of funerary monument dismantling;

  • iv recycling of road materials;

  • v recovery of materials during large-scale renewal works;

  • vi digital interdepartmental exchange platform.

• 3. Eco-design of venues and events

  • vii green space eco-design reference;

  • viii charter of eco-responsible events.

• 4. Sustainable and responsible supplies

  • ix supply of organic and sustainable products in canteens;

  • x socially and environmentally responsible public procurement scheme;

  • xi development of urban agriculture.

• 5. Energy: recovery and reuse of heat and cold

  • xii recovery of heat from wastewater to heat public buildings;

  • xiii recovery of heat from data centres;

  • xiv cooling of public buildings.

• 6. Water management

  • xv development of the non-potable water network and uses;

  • xvi rational water management in green spaces.

• 7. Mobility and goods transport

  • xvii development of urban logistic spaces;

  • xviii shared municipal fleets (cars and bicycles).

• 8. Organic waste: separate collection from recovery

  • xix collection of organic waste (municipal restaurant and markets);

  • xx launch of separate collection of household food waste;

  • xxi support and assistance for collective composting.

• 9. Consumer goods: enhancing the extension of the lifecycle

  • xxii recovery of IT and telephony equipment;

  • xxiiii reuse of furniture;

  • xxiv experimentation with sharing kiosks;

  • xxv support for reuse actors (recycling centers, repair cafès, etc.).

• 10. Zero waste path: facilitating sorting

  • xxvi deployment of Emmaüs Eco-Systems solidarity collections ;

  • xxvii Improving the proximity of bulk waste collection points.

• 11. Fight against food wastage

  • xxviii fight against food wastage in municipal canteens;

  • xxix recovery of unsold items on food markets;

  • xxx support to nonprofit organizations to collect unsold food items.

6 Indicators for CE Developed by the EU

The CE as a model of an economic system is aimed at achieving a more sustainable development [5, 46]. This entails sustainable management of natural resources in the society and the economic system for their functioning and uses in human activities [47].

The concept of sustainability in the management of natural resources refers in particular to renewable resources. The management of a resource can be defined as ‘sustainable’ if its use does not exceed a specific ecological limit coherent with its capacity of reproduction or regeneration in biological cycles, i.e. if not used at a rate that is more than the rate at which nature can produce over the same period [48]. Non-renewable resources, on the contrary, do not have this feature and are defined as exhaustible or finite resources [48]. Fossil fuels can be considered non-renewable, as our global rate of consumption is larger than nature’s capacity to produce new fossil fuels (a process that takes ages). Vegetable oils, such as olive oil, are renewable, and using olive oil can be considered sustainable as long as our agricultural systems do not reduce the population of olive trees, nor their ability to produce a constant amount of olives. Sustainability in the management of such resources should reflect longer periods, spanning generations, to assure that both current and future generations are not compromised in meeting their resource needs [48, 49]. One could even consider that economies have to account for projected population growth, to be sustainable if the availability of a resource per capita over multiple generations is factored in. The approach of CE for finite resources suggests their better conservation and replacement with renewable resources.²⁵ A CE implementation should reduce the demand for natural resources, and reduce environmental impacts. This will allow the decoupling of raw material consumption from economic growth both domestically and abroad, these two factors being typically strongly correlated in a linear economy [22]. This not only requires an increase in recycling and a shift to renewable sources but also absolute reductions in resource extraction and consumption. This implies a downsizing of socio-economic ‘metabolism’—the rate of consumption of raw materials [23, 24].

The monitoring framework for the transition to a CE, as set up by the EU, proposed macro-level indicators to shed light on the use of natural resources and the recycling of waste, primarily for the reduction of the demand for natural resources in Europe. Other CE monitoring frameworks have been proposed for the macro level in different countries such as the Netherlands, France, and China [13] The monitoring framework of the EU, despite its limitations, is a useful tool for measuring progress toward the CE, highlighting where the existing policies have been successful and where they are flawed and should be improved [13]. Ten indicators have been identified, they are grouped and represented in Table 3.2.²⁶

Table 3.2 Indicators identified in the EU’s CE monitoring framework²⁶

The indicators are based on the information coming from three main sources: the statistical office of the EU, named EUROSTAT, the Raw materials scoreboard, and the Resource efficiency scoreboard [13]. Some indicators are still under development, such as those related to Green Public Procurement and Food waste [13]. Other indicators have been consolidated. For example, the recycling rate for the EU of most major waste streams (excluding major mineral waste), has been well documented for each member state. On average, the recycling rate was 56% in 2018, whereas for plastic packaging it was 42%. Additionally, in 2018, about 88% of Construction and demolition waste was recovered and 35% of e-waste was recycled. Another interesting indicator is the circular material use rate (CMU) that measures the share of materials recovered and fed back into the economy as a percentage of overall material use. The CMU was 11,9% for the whole EU (27 countries), in 2019 and it had increased by 3.6% since 2004. At the global level, Haas et al. [24] calculated that the CMU was only 6% in 2005, indicating a very low degree of circularity worldwide. As a result, they suggested the following as key actions:

• the renewable energy transition and the adoption of more preventive measures (such as the reduction of societal stock growth and the application of eco-design for ’circular’ products),

• advancing the circularity rate by reducing the consumption of natural resources and to improve (lower) the environmental footprint of the global society [25].

The indicators used by the EU, and most countries actively involved in promoting CE, are quite often focused on recycling at the macro level. The EU’s European Environment Agency defines ‘circularity’ as the average recycling rate of major waste streams.²⁷ While recycling is indeed a crucial component of any transition to CE, recycling alone is not enough for a society to transition fully to the CE. The EU itself has acknowledged the importance of other waste management methods, such as repair, refurbishment, and remanufacturing, and placed these above recycling in the ‘waste hierarchy in the EU’s 2008 Waste Framework Directive.²⁸ The EU has recently also opened up the debate on degrowth.²⁹ There is an active discussion to see if GDP is still an adequate indicator of success for a country or economic block that has transitioned to CE, or perhaps other measures of success should be prioritized. The discussion on alternatives is only just starting.

7 Concluding Opinion

In this chapter, the authors aimed to provide an overview of the implementation and evaluation of the CE in the macro systems (cities, regions, nations, and beyond). The evaluation methods and indicators that are currently in use for monitoring the transition to CE were listed. Particular attention was given to cities (through two case studies of cities that have aimed to become circular). A large part of the human population is living in cities in the 21st century, and the urbanization rate is still growing, making the socio-economic metabolism of cities increasingly important. The analysis given includes guidelines for cities to approach the transition to the CE, as well as strategies and indicators already adopted by some cities in the EU and worldwide. In particular, for cities, the multitude of indicators capturing the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the transition reflects the nature of CE. The transition to CE is considered an important socio-technical process towards a wider goal of sustainable development. Environmental indicators are the most numerous and often considered along with economic indicators. Social indicators are receiving comparatively lower attention. This imbalance could be due to the initial stage of development of circularity assessment frameworks and the lack of relevant standards. The authors hope that this study would help increase the understanding of the tools for circularity assessment at the macro level as well as stimulate further wider research and development on social indicators essential for tracking the progress towards a CE, with due consideration given to the well-being of society.