Monitoring Progress towards a Resource-Efficient and Circular Economy

Annex B. Existing measurement frameworks and indicators

Abstract

This Annex presents a selection of monitoring frameworks to assess the progress towards a circular economy in countries and the European Union. It is not a comprehensive overview of available frameworks, but rather aims to illustrate different approaches that informed the conceptual monitoring framework outlined in this report and to identify synergies and commonalities among existing indicator sets in terms of structure and indicators chosen.

Box ‎B.1. Summary of main differences and commonalities in reviewed monitoring frameworks

In the past ten years, efforts directed at developing measurement frameworks and indicators for measuring progress towards a circular economy have expanded. The indicator sets in use or being developed are often country specific and developed in consultation with stakeholders and through dialogues between policy makers and statisticians. Therefore, their structure and the topics covered vary across countries.

This Annex provides a detailed review of select monitoring frameworks, which vary in genesis, size, scope and conceptual underpinning.

• The genesis and context in which a monitoring framework was developed differs. Whilst some were developed as extension of environmental metrics (e.g. Colombia), others were linked to a specific CE policy strategy (e.g. France). Some were developed within the governmental ministries, whilst others were the output of research consortia (e.g. Flanders and The Netherlands).

• The scope and the number of indicators varies depending on the purpose for which the indicators are to be used (between 11 and 151 indicators in the reviewed indicator sets). All monitoring frameworks group indicators into sub-themes to create further structure. In the frameworks with larger number of indicators, the themes may also serve to give some prioritisation. Most indicator frameworks are associated with regular reporting (e.g. the Netherlands, Japan).

• Some frameworks represent material flow indicators as relative values, in form of resource efficiency or per-capita indicators (e.g. China, France, EU), other frameworks present absolute values (the Netherlands, Flanders). Some frameworks offer both types of values together (Japan, Colombia). The latter approach has the advantage of conveying a more balanced message: relative indicators provide comparability between countries and demonstrate relative progress, whereas absolute indicators highlight the size of material flows.

• There are remarkable differences in the materials considered: some include water and energy besides the more typical material flows. In the case of China energy and water are even highlighted. Broad material flow indicators are missing from the Colombian framework, while here forestry products are highlighted. Also, the choice whether and how to include the Domestic Material Consumption indicator differs.

• An important consideration is the resilience with respect to future modifications of the indicator sets, to accommodate changes in how the CE may be conceived, in targets and in data availability. For instance, in recent years the role of a CE transition in reaching enhanced emission reductions has been emphasised and including greenhouse gas emission indicators into CE monitoring frameworks may become more central. A robust conceptual framework that is more amenable to accommodate modifications and additions enables more a dynamic monitoring process (e.g. the French framework was revised and updated).

The way the monitoring frameworks and indicators are disseminated is also important. Most frameworks and indicators are available in the form of progress reports (e.g. Japan, the Netherlands, Colombia, France), other frameworks publish data in interactive online tools (European Union, Flanders).

Japan

In Japan, policies related to implementing a CE are centred around the concept of a "Sound Material-Cycle Society", first enacted by the Basic Act for Establishing a Sound-Material Cycle Society in 2000. In 2003 the Japanese government adopted its Fundamental Plan for Establishing a Sound Material-Cycle Society, which is reviewed and revised every five years by the Ministry of Environment Japan (MOEJ). The Fundamental Plan and its targets were last revised in 2018 (MOEJ, 2018[38]; Bangert, 2020[39]).

The development of the Plan was motivated by Japan’s high rate of waste generation, limited availability of land space for waste disposal, increasing public demand for recycling, supply security concerns of raw materials and Japan’s heavy import reliance. The plan is aligned with Japan’s waste and recycling policies, and aims to provide comprehensive measures for materials management, including upstream consumption and downstream waste management and recycling measures (Geng et al., 2012[40]).

The Plan for Establishing a Sound Material-Cycle Society is supported with quantitative time-bound targets and performance indicators. Stakeholders are asked to contribute to their achievement. The targets and the associated indicators are used to monitor progress, assess each stakeholder’s efforts and encourage further action. The Plan includes targets on resource productivity, cyclical use rate (defined at the level of resources and of waste), and on landfilled waste (MOEJ, 2018[41]). The targets are monitored by a framework consisting of a set of 151 indicators, with four headline indicators. The FY2025 targets set in the 4^th Plan for the four headline indicators are:

• Resource Productivity [GDP/Input of natural resources]: 490,000 JPY / ton (approximately double from FY2000)

• Cyclical use rate [amount of cyclical use/(amount of cyclical use + input of natural resources)]: 18% (approximately 80% increase from FY2000)

• Cyclical use rate (waste base) [amount of cyclical use / generation of waste]: 47% (approximately 30% increase from FY2000)

• Final disposal [amount of waste destined for landfills]: 13 million tonnes: 77% decrease from FY2000)

Supplementary indicators refer to different elements of the transition process and societal efforts towards realising a CE and track various elements of material input (material consumption), circularity (recycling rates), material output (waste generation), efforts on regional level, household behaviour, consumer awareness (e.g. through survey results), business operations (e.g. market size of circular business models) and actions in the public sector (e.g. public procurement) (MOEJ, 2018[41]; EASAC, 2016[42]) (Table ‎B.1). Indicator scores are updated yearly and available starting from 2000. The indicators are published in the Annual report on the Environment, the Sound Material-Cycle Society and Biodiversity in Japan, and progress reports are being emitted regularly (MOEJ, 2010[43]; MOEJ, 2013[44]; MOEJ, 2018[38]).

Table ‎B.1. Material flow and resource productivity indicators in Japan

Overview indicators and associated targets for FY 2025
Indicators	Targets for FY 2025
1. Resource Productivity 2. Cyclical Use Rate (resource based) 3. Cyclical Use Rate (waste based) 4. Final Disposal Amount of waste	490 000JPY/tonne, i.e. approx. a doubling of FY 2000 18%, i.e. ~ 80% increase from FY 2000 47%, i.e. ~ 30% increase from FY 2000 13 million tonnes, i.e. a 77% cut from FY 2000
II. Thematic material flow indicators (some associated with targets)
1. Resource productivity by industry 2. Generation of household food waste 3. Generation of commercial food waste 4. Emission of greenhouse gas from the waste sector 5. Reduction of GHG emissions from other sectors through using waste as raw materials and fuel for power generation	6. Ratio of domestically-produced biomass resources to total natural resource inputs 7. Per-capita waste generation per day 8. Per-capita household waste generation per day 9. Business waste generation 10. Amount of illegal dumping 11. Amount of waste treated improperly
III. Thematic management indicators (some associated with targets)
1. Market size of sound material-cycle society business 2. Average power generation efficiency of waste incineration facilities constructed/improved during the period 3. Area of forests with specific forest management plans 4. Number of local governments working on Regional circular and ecological sphere 5. Size of reuse market 6. Size of sharing economy market 7. Guidelines for product assessment by industries (design for environment) 8. Implementation rate of recycling of cyclical food resources 9. Establishment rate of life extension plans for individual facilities (individual facility plan) 10. Number of illegal dumping cases 11. Number of improper waste treatment cases	12. Diffusion rate of electronic manifests 13. Remaining sustainable years of final disposal sites for municipal waste 14. Remaining sustainable years of final disposal sites for industrial waste 15. Share of local governments having a disaster waste management plan 16. Number of nations with which a memorandum of understanding/agreement on environmental cooperation (including for resource recycling) is signed 17. Number of recycling businesses promoting overseas expansion 18. Share of research projects on sound material cycles 19. Waste reduction and awareness for cyclical use and green purchase 20. Implementation rate of specific 3R actions

Source: Country contribution to the annual Round Table on Environmental Information (WPEI) and http://www.env.go.jp/en/wpaper/

The focus of the Fundamental Plan appears to be predominantly on domestic environmental and economic issues related to materials. With the circular use rate as one of the headline targets, the “circular economy” is also partially framed as a goal in itself, as opposed to a means to obtaining other goals. The transition process and the broader effects on the environment, economy and society are less visible within the framework and only covered to some extent in the supplementary indicators. For instance, emissions are only covered to the extent that these occur from waste management. Currently, transboundary issues related to material consumption and impacts are not considered in the framework, but the development of such indicators has been announced (MOEJ, 2018[41]). The lead indicator on resource productivity is based on Direct Material Inputs, not subtracting exports. However, data on Domestic Material Consumption and absolute material flows are available in other parts of the monitoring framework and there are discussions to compute the material footprint indicator, once a methodology has been established (MOEJ, 2018[41]).

Table ‎B.2. Summary of Japan’s indicator framework

Description	A set of four headline indicators and 151 supplementary indicators developed in the wake of a policy plan focusing on issues of waste disposal and access to raw materials.
Indicator coverage	Material consumption, recycling, waste production. Lead indicators are GDP/DMI, cyclical material use rate and waste sent to landfill, all connected to targets. The other indicators cover more aspects e.g. transition process, societal efforts, economic parameters, more detailed waste data.
Actual or intended use of indicators	Indicators are updated yearly and connect to a plan reviewed every five years. Targets have been formulated for the four lead indicators. Progress reports are regularly emitted.
Information gaps	The structure of the framework rather frames material circularity and the “circular economy” as a goal itself that is desirable to be reached; indicators pertaining to the broader transition are more difficult to retrieve. Indirect material use is currently not covered. Emissions are only considered in relation to waste management.

China

Since 2008 the Circular Economy Promotion Law drives the transition towards a CE in China. The associated monitoring comprises two separate indicator sets: one that helps to monitor progress on national and regional levels, and one that applies to industrial parks. The indicator sets provide guidance to CE development planning (Geng et al., 2012[40]).

The indicator set for national and regional analysis contains 22 indicators, categorised into four main themes. The theme “resource output rate” tracks outputs of main mineral resources and of energy. The theme “resource consumption rate” focuses on energy and water consumption divided by three denominators: Gross Domestic Product, added value and the amount of produced materials. The theme “resource utilisation” focuses on recycling of different material streams including metals, paper, plastics and wastewater and the theme “waste disposal and pollutant emissions", includes indicators on waste sent to landfill, wastewater discharges and emissions air (Geng et al., 2012[40]).

The indicator set for industrial parks contains 12 indicators, categorised into the same four main themes. The indicator set is similar, but provides additional information on water and energy consumption per unit of key product.

While the two indicator sets cover a variety of aspects of a CE, the monitoring framework has some limitations, notably (Geng et al., 2012[40]):

• Consumption indicators are only included as efficiency indicators (divided by GDP or per unit of output produced). This reflects progress to a more resource efficient economy, but it hides overall material consumption.

• Waste indicators only indicate the amount of waste destined for disposal, but not the overall amount of waste generated. Similarly, recycling rates are only available for specific waste streams, but no overall recycling rate.

• The indicator set focuses largely on environmental impacts but is lacking indicators on social implications. It also lacks indicators on business activities, circular business models and the higher Rs more generally.

• There is no consideration of value chains outside the country territory and impacts embedded in imports or exports.

• Indicators on environmental implications refer to wastewater discharges emissions of SO2 and chemical oxygen demand. Greenhouse gas emissions are not included but appear to be retrievable beyond this indicator set at the Department for Climate Change Response. Several other ecological indicators appear to be available at the Ministry of Environmental Protection with a city focus, which could also complement this framework.

• No information is available on targets associated with the indicators, nor on follow-up progress assessments or revisions of the indicator set.

Table ‎B.3. Summary of China’s indicator framework

Description	A set of 22 indicators developed to provide guidance to CE development planning in the wake of the Circular Economy Promotion Law
Indicator coverage	Resource productivity, resource consumption, utilisation rate and waste generation. Focus on consumption of energy, water and materials, business activities, recycling, landfilling and pollutant emissions.
Actual or intended use of the indicators	No information available.
Information gaps	Absolute material consumption levels, primary waste production, greenhouse gas emissions, indirect material use, socio-economic aspects focus on industrial value

France

The French framework for monitoring the circular economy was first published in 2017, comprising 11 indicators (Magnier, 2017[45]). It was updated and revised in 2021 (Scribe et al., 2021[46]). It was inspired by the emerging publications on the CE of the European Commission and is designed to benchmark France’s performance against other European countries. Many indicators are available on EU28 level.

France uses a measurement framework and indicators that cover the following dimensions of a CE transition: the supply side (sustainable extraction and manufacturing, eco-design, industrial ecology, employment), the demand side (consumer behaviour, sharing economy initiatives), product management aspects (second-hand, repair, reuse) and waste management aspects (waste prevention, recycling). Eleven indicators within seven pillars are used to report on the circularity of the French economy (Table ‎B.4).

Table ‎B.4. Indicators of the French monitoring framework

Pillar	Indicator
Extraction / manufacturing and sustainable supply chain	Domestic material consumption per capita
	Resource productivity
	Material footprint (new since 2021)
Eco-design (products and processes)	European ecolabel
Industrial symbiosis	Number of industrial symbiosis initiatives
Functional economy	Number of companies and local authorities that have benefited from government support mechanisms on the functional economy
Responsible consumption	Food waste
Extension of product lifespan	Household spending on product maintenance and repair (excluding vehicle maintenance)
Recycling (material and organic)	Landfill tonnage trend
	Use of secondary raw materials in production processes
	Jobs in the repair of goods and recycling of materials

Source: (Scribe et al., 2021[46])

The indicator scoreboard marks individual indicators in colours, depending on the extent to which the indicator score evolves in the desirable direction. Two of the indicators are connected to national CE targets (i.e. resource productivity and waste sent to landfill) (Scribe et al., 2021[46]).

Overall, the indicator set has a strong focus on the material consumption aspect. Indicators on environmental implications are not considered. With regards to recycling, the use of secondary raw materials is monitored, but not the recycling rate in itself. The indicator list includes several indicators on the higher Rs, such as jobs in repair and household spending on repair and maintenance services. Also eco-design aspects are considered. Whilst the monitoring framework covers a diverse set of indicators, the diversity of individual indicators makes it challenging to compare progress and trends of individual indicators. Also, several data limitations are acknowledged for some of the chosen indicators, which have been partially improved in the 2021 revision (Scribe et al., 2021[46]).

Table ‎B.5. Summary of France’s indicator framework

Description	A dashboard of 11 indicators published by the national statistics service incited by French and European policy initiatives
Indicator coverage	Four main indicator themes: supply, consumption, waste and employment. Different aspects of the transition are highlighted, ranging from material consumption and waste to transition actions at the level of companies and consumers.
Actual or intended use of the indicators	Indicator scores and the indicator set have been updated in 2021. The indicators on Resource productivity and on waste sent to landfill directly connect to French CE targets.
Information gaps	The collection reflects the transition in a broad way but is too limited to cover it accordingly. Some aspects are missing e.g. waste production, recycling rates, absolute material consumption. Environmental effects are not considered.

The Netherlands

The Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency and Statistics Netherlands (CBS), together with a consortium of Dutch governmental and knowledge institutions developed a monitoring framework for the Netherlands in 2018 (Potting et al., 2017[5]). The framework was developed to track progress towards Dutch circular economy targets to reduce abiotic resource use by 50% by 2030 and to be completely circular by 2050.

The monitor considers the CE transition in a broad sense by clearly separating the different phases of the transition into input, throughput, output and outcome phases. It also focuses on five priority sectors, which were selected based on economic importance and high environmental burden: 1) biomass and food, 2) plastics, 3) manufacturing industry, 4) construction and 5) consumer goods.

Lead indicators in the Dutch monitoring framework comprise direct and indirect material use and consumption, environmental effects (land use, water extraction, residence-based and footprint emissions), socio-economic effects (economic growth, employment aspects of the CE transition, added value and self-sufficiency), waste and recycling. Renewable energy is also included. The monitor contains the size of the economy and employment as so-called autonomous factors as a way to avoid misinterpretations of changes in indicator values that may be due to broader tendencies rather than progress within the CE transition. Next, the monitor displays data on the transition process by listing and counting an elaborated amount of policy and stakeholder actions and realizations supporting the transition. The monitor additionally contains a Sankey diagram for the Netherlands and furthermore displays indicators disaggregated for five key sectors for which a dedicated transition agreement had been obtained from the government before the development of the monitor. Progress reporting is foreseen biennially, with the first progress report published in 2021 (Hanemaaijer et al., 2021[47]). Shorter focused updates are also published more frequently (Prins and Hanemaaijer, 2022[48]).

The monitor framework is quite comprehensive in terms of scope and selection of indicators. It covers direct and indirect material use, presents absolute indicators besides efficiency indicators and provides GDP and population as context indicators. The framework contains indicators on the broader environmental and socio-economic effects of the transition. It also presents information on the transition process, with the aim to provide a more direct feedback to policy, but given the premature state of development of indicators on this matter the information is qualitative. Interestingly, the Direct Material Consumption indicator is only indirectly displayed in the material productivity indicator. Whilst the framework seems to cover most aspects of the CE transition, gaps remain in terms of data availability for some of the indicators.

Table ‎B.6. Summary of the Dutch indicator framework

Description	Extensive monitoring framework developed to measure progress towards established CE targets and sectoral agreements established by the government.
Indicator coverage	Comprehensive scope, covering all phases of the transition process: input (actors, technology, money), throughput (running actions and projects), output (direct prestation, e.g. material flows) and outcome (indirect effects to the environment (e.g. footprints) and socio-economic).
Actual or intended use of the indicators	Progress assessment conducted biennially, with intermittent focused updates. High-level targets by the national government are not directly reflected in indicators.
Information gaps	Framework is comprehensive in terms of scope, but gaps remain for indicators where data availability is limited.

Colombia

Under Colombia’s Sustainability Pact of the National Development Plan 2018-2022, the National Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE) developed a Circular Economy Information System as a strategic pillar of the National Circular Economy Strategy. The system built on environmental statistics that have been created from 2017 (UNECE, 2021[49]).

The monitoring framework comprises 44 indicators, classified into themes along the material cycle: extraction, production, consumption and use, and closing cycles. Particular focus among the indicators is on mineral reserves and extraction, forestry products, water, energy, waste, greenhouse gas emissions, employment, government spending, added value and waste. A number of indicators are available both as absolute numbers and as intensity values, e.g. indicators on forestry products, water, energy and emissions. Follow-up on the indicator scores has taken place with the publication of, so far, five Circular Economy Reports, focusing on the state and opportunities for Colombia to transition towards more circular production and consumption (DANE, 2022[50]).

In the Colombian indicator set, water and energy are considered as an implicit part of a CE. The dedicated inclusion of forestry products as an individual indictor relates to the importance of this raw material in the Colombian country. A comprehensive material flow analysis is currently not included in the work; but sectoral Sankey diagram were included for energy carriers and their use, carbon emissions, water abstraction and waste generation and fate (DANE, 2022[50]). The key materials that the monitoring framework focuses on are energy carriers, water and forestry products. Data on other materials are largely absent in the reports. As such, the transition process is only limited covered.

Table ‎B.7. Summary of the Colombia’s indicator framework

Description	Indicator set of 44 indicators developed under Colombia’s Sustainability Pact, maintained by its Department of Statistics in order to inform progress in national CE strategy.
Indicator coverage	Extraction, production, consumption and use, and closing cycles; more specifically mineral reserves and extraction. Strong focus on forestry products, water, energy carriers and waste. Other aspects considered include greenhouse gas emissions, employment, government spending, added value and waste.
Actual or intended use of the indicators	DANE publishes circular economy reports several times per year with new and updated data. No national targets seem to be tied to the monitoring framework and indicator set.
Information gaps	Direct and indirect material flows, transition process.

Region of Flanders (Belgium)

The Flanders Region in Belgium has developed a monitoring tool that focuses on the outputs and outcomes of a CE, with indicators on environmental outcomes (e.g. climate impacts), economic outcomes (e.g. access to materials), societal outcomes (e.g. jobs). The tool includes indicators on product chains, footprint indicators (material and carbon), and indicators that link the CE transition to planetary boundaries, as well as indicators on societal and economic drivers (e.g. mobility, housing, food habits, consumption goods).

Flanders’ monitor was published in 2021 as a result of a five-year academic research project dedicated to provide the Flemish government of Belgium with a tool to monitor its transition towards a more circular economy (Circular Flanders, 2022[51]). Since 2017 the Flemish government maintains a long-term policy agenda called Vision 2050 in which the CE transition is considered one of the seven societal transition themes and in which a dedicated public-private cooperation has been installed named Circular Flanders. The process of building the monitor included academic research combined with elaborate stakeholder discussions (Alaerts et al., 2019[52]).

The framework displays a total of about 140 indicators.

• About 25 indicators constitute a top layer of macro indicators that represent the CE transition as a means to reach broader sustainability goals. It includes a separate section for ‘circularity’ comprising inflows, R-strategies and outflows, and broader environmental and socio-economic effects. The indicators cover among others Direct and Raw Material Input, Domestic and Raw Material Consumption, water consumption, waste generation, recycling, cyclical material use, an in-house developed reuse indicator, residence-based and indirect emissions, spatial occupation, employment in CE and employment in reuse shops. Indicators about the transition process are almost absent.

• More specific indicators on four systems that fulfil societal needs, including (i) mobility, (ii) buildings and housing, (iii) nutrition, and (iv) consumer goods are available down to the product group level with the aim to provide a more direct feedback to policy. A few of these indicators refer to the transition process, e.g. the amount of car sharing memberships or the number of renovations.

The overall indicator set is available online and will be further maintained and developed in the coming years by the research consortium. In 2019, the Flemish government announced several headline targets for the CE transition, notably on household waste reduction, recycling and a 30% reduction of the material footprint. These targets link to the respective indicators in the monitoring framework.

Table ‎B.8. Summary of the Flemish indicator framework

Description	A set of around 140 indicators at the macro and the meso-level developed on request of the Flemish government, in the wake of the installation of Circular Flanders.
Indicator coverage	Circularity and effects at the macro level: material flows, waste, recycling, reuse, emissions, material footprints, spatial occupation, employment. More detailed indicators are available on food, buildings and housing, mobility and consumer goods.
Actual or intended use of the indicators	The framework and indicators are available online and will be further maintained and developed in the coming years. Targets on waste, recycling and material footprint connect to the framework.
Information gaps	Information on the transition process is largely missing.

European Union

In January 2018, the European Commission adopted the first EU monitoring framework for the circular economy developed as part of its 2015 EU Circular Economy Action Plan. It included a set of key indicators to track progress in the EU and in Member States (Mayer et al., 2018[53]). Most indicators were retrieved from existing EU monitoring frameworks, including the Resource Efficiency Scoreboard, the Raw Materials Scoreboard and the Waste Framework Directive (Moraga et al., 2019[54]). In May 2023, the European Commission published a revised monitoring framework for the circular economy (European Commission, 2023[16]). The monitoring framework is maintained by Eurostat and available online.

The 2018 framework included ten indicator themes and 24 indicators grouped into 4 thematic sections: (1) production and consumption, including self-sufficiency for raw materials, Green Public Procurement, Waste generation, Food waste; (2) waste management featuring a range of recycling indicators; (3) secondary raw materials, including End-of-life recycling input rates, Cyclical material use rate, imports, exports and trade of recyclable raw materials: and (4) competitiveness and innovation, including investments, employment, value added and patents.

The 2023 monitoring framework includes 11 indicators, some of which have sub-indicators, grouped into five thematic sections: (1) production and consumption; (2) waste management; (3) secondary raw materials; (4) competitiveness and innovation; and (5) global sustainability and resilience (Table ‎B.9).

The framework provides a holistic view as it measures direct and indirect benefits of “becoming circular”; values the contribution of a CE in living well within the limits of the planet; and addresses energy and material supply risks. It has a strong focus on material circularity and on waste and recycling aspects. Other aspects of the CE transition, such as the link with climate and other environmental impacts are largely covered by other monitoring frameworks1. The intent was to keep the framework concise and to minimise additional burden on national administrations.

The following indicators have been added in the 2023 revision:

• Material footprint, measuring the overall use of materials and reflecting the amount of materials embedded in overall consumption, including imported goods;

• Resource productivity, measuring the amount of GDP from materials use and demonstrating the efficiency in using materials in the production of goods and services;

• Consumption footprint, comparing consumption to the planetary boundaries for 16 impact categories based on a life-cycle assessment and 5 main areas of consumption (food, mobility, housing, households goods and appliances);

• GHG emissions from production activities, measuring the GHG emissions produced by production sectors (i.e. excluding emissions from households) and reflecting the contribution of the CE to climate neutrality;

• Material dependency, measuring the share of imported materials in overall material use, describing how much the EU depends on imports of materials and reflects the contribution of the CE to security of supply of materials and energy and to the EU’s open strategic autonomy.

All indicators meet the criteria of relevance, acceptance, credibility, ease of use and robustness. They were selected to capture the main elements of a CE. Communication around the monitoring framework also features an interactive material flow diagram for the European Union as a whole (Sankey diagram) and other visualisation tools with up-to-date data. In areas where policy targets exist, the indicators are used monitor progress towards achieving these targets.

Most indicators are based on official statistics sourced by Eurostat; a few use data from the research community. They are available at the level of the European Union, as well as for individual member states and updated annually. For some indicators, data are only available for the EU as a whole. The framework includes indicators for which data gathering is still in progress (e.g. Food Waste), where robust data and methodologies still need to be developed (e.g. Green Public Procurement or indicators in the competitiveness and innovation category). With respect to the latter, the documentation mentions the issue that economic statistics are based on industrial sectors, impairing a proper definition of the CE in terms of employment (NACE codes) or innovation (patent statistics). Patent statistics also have the limitation that they do not cover all innovation taking place, but only certain types. When appropriate, the Commission works with the relevant stakeholders to investigate the use of new data sources to improve measurement.

Table ‎B.9. Indicators in the 2023 monitoring framework for the circular economy

No	Indicator	Relevance	Source
Production and consumption
1a-b	Material consumption 1a. Material footprint (tonnes/capita) 1b.Resource productivity (EUR/kg)	Decreasing the consumption of materials indicates decoupling economic growth from resource use.	Eurostat
2	Green public procurement1	Public procurement accounts for a large share of consumption and can drive the circular economy.	European Commission
3a-f	Waste generation 3a. Total waste generation per capita (kg/capita) 3b. Total waste generation (excl. major mineral waste) per GDP (kg/EUR) 3c. Generation of municipal waste per capita 3d. Food waste (kg/capita) 3e. Generation of packaging waste per capita (kg/capita) 3f. Generation of plastic packaging waste per capita (kg/capita)	In a circular economy, waste generation is minimised.	Eurostat
Waste management
4a-b	Overall recycling rates 4a. Recycling rate for municipal waste (%) 4b. Recycling rate for all waste excl. major mineral waste (%)	Increasing recycling is part of the transition to a circular economy.	Eurostat
5a-c	Recycling rates for specific waste streams 5a. Recycling rate for overall packaging waste (%) 5b. Recycling rate for plastic packaging waste (%) 5c. Recycling rate for electrical and electronic equipment waste that is separately collected (%)	Progress in recycling key waste streams is essential for sustainability and resilience.	Eurostat
Secondary raw materials
6a-b	Contribution of recycled materials to demand for raw materials 6a. Circular material use rate (%) 6b. End-of-life recycling input rates (%)	In a circular economy, secondary raw materials are commonly used to make new products.	Eurostat, other EC services
7a-c	Trade in recyclable raw materials 7a. Imports from outside the EU (tonnes) 7b. Exports to outside the EU (tonnes) 7c. Intra-EU trade (tonnes)	Trade in recyclables reflects the importance of the internal market and global participation in the circular economy.	Eurostat
Competitiveness and innovation
8a-c	Private investments, jobs and gross value added related to circular economy sectors 8a. Private investments (% GDP) 8b. Employment (% employment) 8c. Gross value added (% GDP)	The circular economy can contribute to the creation of jobs and growth.	Eurostat
9	Green innovation 9. Patents related to waste management and recycling (number and number per million inhabitants)	Innovative technologies related to the circular economy boost the EU’s global competitiveness.	Joint Research Centre, PATSTAT
Global sustainability and resilience
10a-b	Global sustainability 10a. Consumption footprint (index 2010='100' and times the planetary boundaries is transgressed) 10b. GHG emissions from production activities (kg per capita)	Consumption footprint indicates the extent to which production and consumption systems are within planetary boundaries. The circular economy contributes to climate neutrality.	Joint Research Centre, Eurostat
11a-b	Resilience 11a. Material import dependency (%) 11b. EU self-sufficiency for raw materials (%)	The circular economy contributes to the security of supply of raw materials and helps to address supply risks, in particular for critical raw materials.	Eurostat, other EC services

1. GPP indicator under development.

Source: (European Commission, 2023[16])

Table ‎B.10. Summary of the EU indicator framework

Description	11 indicators and their sub-indicators grouped into 5 thematic sections (revised in 2023). Focus on material circularity and on waste and recycling aspects.
Indicator coverage	Production and consumption; waste management; secondary raw materials; competitiveness and innovation; and global sustainability and resilience.
Actual or intended use of the indicators	The indicators are available online. Regular (annual) updates of the indicators through Eurostat. Used to monitor the achievement of targets. Established targets currently focus on waste management.
Information gaps	Interactions with the environment, policy responses and social dimensions only limitedly covered. Some indicators require further work to be fully measurable.

Note

← 1.  The indicators in the revised framework are consistent with other EU monitoring tools, in particular the monitoring framework for the 8th environment action programme; the zero-pollution monitoring and outlook; the EU indicators for the sustainable development goals; and the resilience dashboard.