la ri ty Gap Repo

i r c u rt 2
02
eC 5
Th

A circular economy
to live within the safe
limits of the planet
 B e h i n d t h e c ove r

This year’s cover captures a stark contrast: desert encroaching

on lush forest. It’s a powerful visual metaphor for our current
trajectory—where resource overuse and environmental
degradation threaten to erase what remains green and vital.
The circular economy offers a path to push back the desert,
both literally and figuratively, by restoring balance between
people, planet, and prosperity.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 2

 Circle Economy is driving the transition to a new
economy. In this economy we help businesses, cities
and nations leverage business opportunities, reduce
costs, create jobs and inspire behavioural change.
As a global impact organisation, our international
team equips business leaders and policymakers with
the insights, strategies, and tools to turn circular
ambition into action.

Circle Economy has been at the forefront of

the circular economy transition since 2012. Our
annual Circularity Gap Report sets the standard for
measuring progress and we manage the world’s
largest circularity database, encompassing data
from over 90 nations, 350 cities, and
1,000 businesses.

I n c o l l a b o ra t i o n w i t h :

Deloitte provides leading professional

services to nearly 90% of the Fortune Global 500®
and thousands of private companies.
Our people deliver measurable and lasting results
that help reinforce public trust in capital markets
and enable clients to transform and thrive.
Building on its 180-year history, Deloitte spans
more than 150 countries and territories. Learn how
Deloitte’s approximately 460,000 people worldwide
make an impact that matters at

www.deloitte.com

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 3

Table
of contents
Executive summary 10

1 Introduction 16

2 How circular is the 22

global economy?
A comprehensive look into the state
of global circularity

3 The way forward 57

Calls to action for stakeholders in
government and business

Endnotes 66

Acknowledgements 72

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 4

In support of the
Circularity Gap Report

‘The Circularity Gap Report has become a key measure

of progress in the global transition to a circular
economy. The 2025 report reveals how far the world is
Dr Jack Barrie from achieving a truly regenerative circular system—
Senior Research Fellow, and, as a result, how vulnerable economies are to
Royal Institute of increasing resource volatility and competition. It also
International Affairs provides a global benchmark—a critical reference
point from which to accelerate progress—alongside a
compelling case showing why urgent global action is
needed today.’

‘Amid rising geopolitical tensions, resource

competition, and economic volatility, the circular
economy is more important than ever. It plays a
key role in driving new investments, shaping free-
Atte Jääskeläinen trade agreements, and strengthening development
President, The Finnish cooperation—such as the support provided by
Innovation Fund Sitra the new Sitra-led EU Circular Economy Resource
Centre. The world’s resource flows are changing,
and this report manages to both stress the urgency
of transitioning while capturing the opportunities a
circular economy offers.’

‘Businesses play a crucial role in scaling circular

solutions, and brands, in particular, have the power
to mobilise consumers across the globe and drive
behavioural change. By rethinking product design,
Hege Sæbjørnsen investing in new business models, and developing
Global Circular Strategy new capabilities, the private sector can accelerate
Leader, Ingka Group, IKEA the transition towards a circular economy. The
Circularity Gap Report is a valuable tool that provides
insights, informs better actions, and suggests
impactful indicators for progress.’

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 5

In support of the
Circularity Gap Report

‘At be’ah, we believe that circularity is the foundation

for a sustainable future. The Circularity Gap Report
2025 highlights the urgent need for systemic change,
Dr Mohab Ali Al-Hinai reinforcing the role of collaboration, innovation, and
Vice President Sustainability responsible resource use in shaping a resilient global
& Circular Economy, be’ah economy. We are proud to support this initiative and
remain committed to driving impactful change for
Oman and beyond.’

‘Despite widespread discussions on the circular

economy, the world is becoming less circular. I
Helena McLeod
commend the Circularity Gap Reports for bringing
Deputy Director-General this urgent issue to light. Its call is clear: nations
and Head of Green Growth must urgently shift to a circular economy to build
Planning & Implementation resilience and sustainability. We look forward to
Division, Global Green more region- and country-specific assessments and
Growth Institute the formal adoption of circularity metrics in national
and regional policy frameworks.’

‘To unleash the full potential of circularity and help

raise the global Circularity Metric beyond its current
6.9%, we hope that the Circularity Gap Report 2025
will serve as a catalyst for informed, data-driven
action. Such action is essential for accelerating
the global transition towards a circular economy.
This will help address the triple planetary crisis of
HRH Princess Sumaya climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution,
bint El Hassan while advancing human well-being within the limits
of our planet. In Jordan, where resource scarcity
President, The Royal
and environmental pressures are keenly felt, the
Scientific Society of Jordan
case for circularity is both urgent and compelling.
At the Royal Scientific Society, we remain steadfast
in our commitment to advancing circular economy
principles through innovation, collaboration, and
regional leadership. We believe that Jordan can
serve as a model for practical, scalable solutions
that respect both people and planet.’

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 6

In support of the
Circularity Gap Report

‘The Circularity Gap Report 2025 highlights that,

more than ever, urgent action to boost circularity is
Janez Potočnik required from policymakers and industry leaders.
Co-Chair, International The transition needs to be guided by science-based
Resource Panel targets for material consumption, particularly in high-
income countries, which are overshooting the safe
and just boundaries of our planet.’

‘The Circularity Gap Report 2025 highlights

the crucial role of governments in driving the
circular transition through smart policies and
Elisabeth Türk multilateral collaboration. UNECE supports this
Director of Economic goal by providing policy tools that leverage trade,
Cooperation and Trade Division, innovation, and infrastructure financing, while
United Nations Economic fostering cooperation through Circular STEP—a
Commission for Europe network of government experts working to bridge
the Circularity Gap in line with the UN’s Sustainable
Development Goal 12 on sustainable consumption
and production.’

‘Circular solutions are the only way for businesses

to meet both their growth ambitions and global
Quentin Drewell sustainability targets. The Circularity Gap Report
2025 provides critical insights that help bridge the
Senior Director, Circular gap between circular potential and action. Aligning
Products and Materials, with initiatives like the Global Circularity Protocol,
World Business Council for this report plays a crucial role in guiding business
Sustainable Development leaders toward measurable and transformative
actions to ensure businesses can generate long-
term value and build up resilience.’

‘Globally, there is an urgent need for bold,

innovative solutions that drive a systemic shift
towards a circular economy. Incorporating circular
principles will play a critical role in building
Seema Arora
competitiveness and addressing socioeconomic
Deputy Director General, development challenges. The Confederation
Confederation of Indian of Indian Industry recognises the importance
Industry of transparent, robust data—as provided and
championed by the Circularity Gap Report 2025—to
inform decision-makers and create an enabling
policy environment within which industry can act.’

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 7

In support of the
Circularity Gap Report

‘Circularity requires resource-light consumption,

circular business models and ambitious policy targets.
This year’s Circularity Gap Report highlights the
Heike Vesper missing link in circularity: we must reduce our overall
Chief Executive, Transformation material footprint and waste generation. Reuse and
& Policies, WWF Germany lifetime extension are crucial. Policymakers must
implement economic conditions for circularity to
thrive, and businesses must scale impactful strategies
and drive systemic change.’

‘The data-driven approach taken by the Circularity

Gap Report 2025 emphasises the critical role of
metrics in advancing the circular economy.
Johanna Pakarinen By measuring and analysing how resources are
Senior Advisor, Statistics Finland used, the report provides essential insights for
informed decision-making on sustainability,
highlighting the importance of tracking material
flows in achieving a resilient future.’

‘The Circularity Gap Report 2025 is a decisive wake-

Smail Al Hilali up call. By revealing our declining circularity
and emphasising the urgent need for systemic
Chief, Division of Circular change, it provides a roadmap for clean industrial
Economy & Green Industry, transformation that can address climate, nature
United Nations Industrial and economic risks. UNIDO supports these efforts
Development Organization through a broad range of technical cooperation
services on the circular economy.’

‘I fully endorse the Circularity Gap Report 2025 and

its Circularity Metric for the insightful overview of
the transition to a circular economy it provides.
Dr Zsuzsanna Király
While this shift presents a substantial challenge
Deputy Secretary General, for the Central European Initiative region, it also
Central European Initiative offers significant opportunities to strengthen local
economies, empower communities, and foster
sustainable development and resilience.’

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 8

In support of the
Circularity Gap Report

‘The Circularity Gap Report 2025 rightly highlights

the urgency of transitioning to a circular economy.
Fabian Farkas The Forest Stewardship Council supports its call
Chief Markets Officer, for regenerative systems that prioritise renewable,
Forest Stewardship Council responsibly sourced, and reused materials. This keeps
International value in the loop and ensures that ecosystems—such
as forests—can thrive—sustaining people, climate and
biodiversity for generations to come.’

‘The Circularity Gap Report 2025 is a broad scorecard

on the state of global circularity and offers a clear
roadmap for how to incorporate circular practices
into business strategies. It provides leaders with
Jennifer Steinmann actionable insights on how to invest in diverse
Deloitte Global Sustainability material streams and circular pathways in order to
Business Leader, Deloitte enhance supply chain resilience and mitigate risks.
By doing so, business leaders can unlock growth
and new opportunities for innovation and efficiency
across their enterprises.’

‘India is central to the global circular economy

Rasmus Abildgaard transition, with its dynamic industries, innovation
Kristensen ecosystem, and vast potential for circular solutions.
The Circularity Gap Report 2025 provides vital insights
Ambassador of Denmark to
to guide this shift, highlighting both the urgency
India, Ministry of Foreign
and opportunities of reducing material use while
Affairs of Denmark
supporting resilience.’

‘The annual Circularity Gap Report gives an important

insight into the relative amounts of recycled
Chris Jansen materials in our economy. It is therefore a source of
Minister for the Environment inspiration for the Netherlands in shaping effective
and Public Transport, and realistic circular policies. We can unlock an
Government of the Netherlands acceleration towards the circular economy to
enhance our competitiveness, reduce strategic
vulnerabilities, and create future-proof jobs.’

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 9

Executive summary

The economic system should deliver maximum • Circular: Secondary Materials (the Circularity Metric)
possible wellbeing within the safe limits of our and Carbon-Neutral Biomass;
planet. After seven years of reporting, our message
• Linear: Non-Carbon-Neutral Biomass, Fossil Fuels
remains much the same: in the face of escalating
combusted for energy, and other Virgin, Non-
global challenges, the circular economy offers a
Renewable Materials destined for landfill;
means to rewire the entrenched linear practices that
no longer serve most people or the planet. Since the • Potentially circular, potentially linear: Net
launch of the first Circularity Gap Report in 2018, we’ve additions of virgin materials to Stocks—such as
analysed the Circularity Metric to offer insight into buildings, infrastructure, and machinery—that can
the global state of the circular economy transition.1 either be recycled or wasted at their end-of-life
This single figure quantifies the share of secondary many years down the road.
materials out of total material consumption, serving
This report examines how materials enter the
as a North Star for tracking progress towards the
economy, whether they re-enter it and, if not, how
circular transition. But the Metric is one piece of a
they leave it—either as waste or emissions. Various
larger puzzle. That’s why, for the first time, this report
sub-indicators support each of the headline indicators
analyses the Circularity Gap to examine how the rest
above to give a sense of where we are, where we’re
of the materials flowing into and out of the global
heading, and where targets are needed to drive action
economy are contributing to a circular economy—or
in the right direction. This year’s report serves as a
not. Global material flows can be broken down into
data-rich, comprehensive report card for the global
three interconnected categories:
state of circularity, opening up the Circularity Gap to
support practical decision-making.

Circular Li n e a r Pote n t i a l l y
circular
Pote n t i a l l y
linear
Non-Renewable
Secondary
Materials destined for
Materials
Landfill

Stocks

Carbon-Neutral Non-Carbon-Neutral
Biomass Biomass

Fossil Fuels
combusted for Energy

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 10

 The Circularity Metric continues to time, there is a significant opportunity to bolster
decline: the vast majority of materials the Circularity Metric by recycling all the materials
entering the economy are virgin, with that potentially could 3 be cycled but currently aren’t.
the share of secondary materials Virgin, Non-Renewable Materials destined for
falling from 7.2% to 6.9% as of the landfill—including heavy industrial wastes, short-
latest analysis. lived consumer products, and end-of-life vehicles or
construction materials—account for nearly one-fifth
Ongoing declines in circularity can largely be tied
(18.1%) of global material inputs. This represents huge
to sustained growth in material use. Although the
untapped potential: if we were to recycle all waste
absolute scale of secondary material consumption
currently not being recycled without reducing overall
is slowly trending upwards, this is being outpaced
material use, for example, the Circularity Metric would
by growth in virgin material use. Global extraction
grow to approximately 25%.
has more than tripled in the last fifty years, recently
reaching a landmark 100 billion tonnes—and without There is potential to boost circularity by better-
‘bending the trend’, this is set to rise by a further managing construction and demolition waste, as well
60% by 2060. 2 as smaller waste streams, like municipal solid waste.
However, a good portion of Virgin, Non-Renewable
A truly circular economy should be resource-light:
Materials are hard-to-recycle, lower-value waste types,
without profoundly rewiring systems of production
from waste rock to soils, underscoring the importance
and consumption and applying structural changes
of rolling out circular strategies that minimise waste
across key systems—from housing and food to
from the outset while prioritising high-value reuse and
mobility and manufacturing—we will not be able to
recycling where possible.
close the loop on material consumption. At the same

The verdict In an ideal world,

Without strong global targets to hold us we use as many secondary materials as possible
to the right path, we’re veering off course while minimising extraction and consumption.
for several key indicators. Natural resource Industries have embraced principles of material
management and global material use trends efficiency and sufficiency, prioritising the use
are moving in the wrong direction: material of recycled inputs alongside circular design
extraction and waste generation are trending principles. Material recovery from long-lived
upwards, while recycling and controlled stocks—such as buildings and infrastructure,
disposal rates are both trending downwards which can act as ‘banks’ of materials for
over a five-year period. What’s more, official, reuse—has been optimised. At the same time,
science-based global material use targets are countries have vastly improved waste collection,
lacking, making it difficult to drive progress. processing and recycling and have minimised
waste from extraction processes.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 11

 A sustainable bioeconomy is nutrients, reduce habitat diversity, and contribute to
important to the global circular deforestation, threatening ecosystems and species.
economy transition, but measuring its It is not currently possible to measure other important
impact remains a blind spot. criteria for circular biomass, such as whether nutrients
are safely returned to the biosphere in the right place
Of all the materials flowing into the global economy,
and at the right rate. For this reason, even Carbon-
21.5% are Carbon-Neutral Biomass, and 2.2% are Non-
Neutral Biomass should be considered carefully and
Carbon-Neutral Biomass.* Carbon-Neutral Biomass
with nuance. Though Non-Carbon-Neutral Biomass
refers to biomass that absorbs as much carbon as
accounts for just 2.2% of material inputs, it represents
it emits over its lifecycle, maintaining a balance
approximately one-tenth of total biomass use—still a
through natural processes like regrowth and carbon
crucial share to minimise.
sequestration.
Despite its declining share in global material
Non-Carbon-Neutral Biomass represents the portion
extraction, the scale of biomass extraction has more
that exceeds this balance: it doesn’t imply a difference
than doubled in the last half-century, driving land-
in how the biomass is extracted but rather reflects
use change and biodiversity loss and accounting for
that a certain proportion is ‘in the red’. However, all
a significant portion of global emissions. Developing
biomass extraction comes with numerous uncaptured
a more circular economy will require a rebalancing of
environmental impacts. Although renewable, biomass
global land use: currently, a disproportionate share of
isn’t sustainable by default, and carbon neutrality is
the planet’s land is used for agriculture—particularly
only a partial criterion for quantifying its circularity.
for pasture and feed crops. Transforming our food
By only considering this aspect, we can’t account for
systems towards circular, regenerative practices
the loss of ecological complexity and biodiversity
and plant-based, unprocessed diets will be critical to
that biomass extraction may cause—for example,
reducing these pressures and restoring ecosystems.
large-scale monoculture plantations can deplete soil

The verdict In an ideal world,

We’re making some progress, but more we’ve reduced the land footprint intensity
must be done to help meet global targets. of biomass production and use biomass in
Global biomass extraction and other key a way that respects natural cycles—such as
indicators—water stress, for example—are the carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and water
trending upwards, while the share of forested cycles—prevents the harmful transformation
land is decreasing. While we are making of land, nurtures biodiversity and soil health,
progress at safely treating wastewater and and maximises value through cascading
bolstering land protection, progress isn’t where possible.
happening at the speed and scope needed to
meet global climate and biodiversity targets.
Without accelerated action, ecosystems
may struggle to sustain the industries and
communities that depend on them.

* A much smaller share of biomass is captured by other indicators,

making its way into the technical cycle and contributing to the
Circularity Metric, Virgin, Non-Renewable Materials destined for
disposal, or Net Additions to Stock.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 12

 The transition to a net-zero energy system presents
Fossil fuel use remains high and
a major opportunity to reduce reliance on fossil
continues growing, with few strong
fuels while mitigating environmental harm. To do
incentives to change course.
this, we should systematically restructure how we
Although the rate of fossil fuel extraction relative power transport, generate electricity and process
to other materials has declined, absolute extraction materials. This requires scaling down these activities
has increased—from 6.1 billion tonnes in 1970 to and reorienting financial flows from subsidies
15.8 billion tonnes in 2021.4 13.3% of materials towards decarbonised systems based on electricity
flowing into the economy are Fossil Fuels combusted and powered by renewable sources. Although the
for energy, the main driver of climate breakdown. energy transition will initially be material-intensive—
In 2021, energy use accounted for 73%5 of global particularly in terms of metals—smart system
greenhouse gas emissions—excluding those from design can reduce reliance on present and future
land use, land-use change and forestry—with fossil material inputs. This contrasts with the current
fuels remaining the dominant energy source today, energy system, which requires a constant flow of
representing 82% of total primary energy supply.6 fossil fuels to sustain.

Historically, fossil fuel demand and global economic Adopting circular design principles—such as durability,
growth have been closely coupled—and even now, reuse, and recycling—at both the product and the
their use continues to be incentivised through system level will be crucial to minimise environmental
artificially low prices, with explicit subsidies burden shifting, such as halting fossil fuel extraction
amounting to an estimated US$1.4 trillion in 2021.7 but ramping up mining.

The verdict In an ideal world,

While there’s been some progress towards we’ve prioritised systemic efficiency to keep
decarbonisation, it isn’t enough to limit growing energy demand in check, enabling
warming to 1.5-degrees. Total energy renewable energy to replace—rather than
supply and global greenhouse gas emissions simply add to—fossil-based sources in
are still trending upwards—and while we’re the energy mix. Because electricity is the
seeing positive increases in electrification most efficient and easiest form of energy to
and renewable energy consumption, we’re decarbonise, we’ve electrified as many activities
not yet on track to meet global targets. and end uses as possible and powered them
Electrification, for example, is growing more with clean renewables.
slowly than energy demand, and the carbon
intensity of electricity generation is growing.
What’s more, half of the waste generated by
the global economy is released in the form of
emissions: because we can’t ‘close the loop’ on
emissions, this represents a significant barrier
to bolstering circularity.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 13

 Rapid stock accumulation is a to increase the Circularity Metric. However, stocks
primary driver of rising resource are highly material-intensive, with their total weight
extraction—particularly non- increasing 23-fold over the 20th century, 8 a trend
metallic minerals, which account set to continue alongside rapid urbanisation and
for half of total extraction. economic growth.

Of all materials entering the global economy, By 2050, urban populations will grow by 2.5 billion,
38% are virgin Net Additions to Stock. This includes requiring significant stock build-up,9 particularly in
non-metallic minerals, metals, and small amounts lower- and middle-income countries. These nations
of fossil-fuel-based materials and biomass used have the opportunity to embed circular principles
primarily for buildings, infrastructure, vehicles at scale, avoiding the unsustainable development
and machinery. patterns of higher-income countries by prioritising
dense urban environments supported by public and
Stocks aren’t inherently positive or negative and
shared mobility options. Meanwhile, higher-income
even have serious potential to boost circularity
countries with vast existing stocks should minimise
down the road if circular design principles are
new stock growth and focus on extending the lifetim
integrated now. By ‘mining’ existing stocks, we can
expand the pool of recyclable materials available

The verdict In an ideal world,

We’re using more materials than ever to circular practices like repair, retrofitting and
build up stocks—but targets to guide how refurbishing are commonplace ways to keep
and at what rate this is done are lacking physical assets in use for as long as possible.
across the board. Total floor space, the weight Stocks are designed for longevity, and are
of material stocks and growth in built-up areas easy to repair, dismantle and recycle at their
are all trending upwards. With a complete lack end of life—thus providing a flow of valuable
of global and sub-global targets, we’re neither secondary materials. Renewable materials, such
on nor off track—technically speaking. as sustainably-sourced timber, biocement and
Limiting stock growth—in both incremental biocomposites, contribute to stock composition,
and cumulative terms—where it’s not and are managed in a circular way. Operations
necessary and sustainably optimising it are localised as much as possible to reduce
through circular design where it is will be energy consumption for unnecessary transport.
essential going forward.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 14

Governments have a key opportunity to lead Businesses that integrate circular strategies—
the circular transition through smart policies including material recovery, closed-loop production,
and transparent multilateral collaboration. By and localised supply chains—can reduce reliance
setting a clear vision and providing unified support on volatile global markets and potentially cut costs.
for circular initiatives, governments have the critical To maximise these benefits, businesses should
mandate to shape the right conditions for circularity consider the bigger picture—such as the indicators
to flourish—levelling the playing field by shifting measured in this report—whilst simultaneously
tax burdens, reorienting subsidies away from linear measuring and monitoring circularity for their
activities, and redirecting government funds towards own operations and value chains. Communicating
circular projects and initiatives. However, no country progress and the benefits of adopting circular
can tackle resource use reduction in isolation: practices can inspire industry-wide adoption,
transition in our highly globalised world ought to but collaboration is key: by sharing knowledge,
be backed by strong regional—and, where possible, practising industrial symbiosis, shifting sales
international—collaboration to effectively manage and service models, and working closely with
global material flows and reduce extraction. Despite governments, businesses can overcome barriers
growing recognition of the need to tackle resource and build circular economies of scale.
mismanagement and align economic activity with our
planet’s safe limits, this report highlights the lack of
both clear targets and a global governance framework
to monitor the shift to more sustainable resource use.
An international institution on resource management
could steer action by providing science-based
assessments, policy guidance, and benchmarks to
track material use—an approach already reflected in
the negotiating text of the legally binding agreement
on plastics pollution, for example.10 At the national
level, governments should select and monitor reliable
indicators—such as those analysed for this report—
to create accountability, identify trends, and refine
policies over time, ensuring that circularity efforts
have the intended impact.

Businesses that adopt circular practices now

can gain a competitive edge, unlock new
revenue streams, and future-proof against
resource scarcity and market volatility. Although
governments set regulatory frameworks, businesses
shouldn’t wait for these to come into force to
begin shaping their new normal. By staying ahead
of the regulatory curve and spearheading the
transition now, businesses have a lot to gain: they
can gain a competitive edge, unlock new revenue
streams (through service models, for example), and
mitigate risks associated with resource scarcity and
geopolitical trade instability. The global economy is
facing increasing supply chain disruptions, particularly
for the critical raw materials essential to numerous
key industries—including the decarbonisation and
digitalisation of the global economy.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 15

 1 Introduction

Ensuring human wellbeing while operating within

the safe limits of our planet remains the enduring
challenge of our time. The economic system should
deliver the maximum possible wellbeing to all
while preserving and regenerating the natural
environment and ecosystem services underpinning
it. The circular economy is a means to this end,
with strategies that rethink and optimise how
we use resources to provide wellbeing. It can
provide the deep cuts in material use needed to
stave off climate breakdown, bolster biodiversity,
and boost resilience. Calculating baselines is an
important step to inspire action and inform target
setting—essential for creating accountability,
driving international cooperation, steering policy
and re-orienting financial flows. This report aims
to do just this: building on years of experience
calculating the Circularity Metric, it now opens up
the Circularity Gap. It recognises that although
the Metric has been useful in providing a global
baseline for circularity, it is only one piece of
a large and complex puzzle. This year’s edition
provides a comprehensive ‘report card’ on the
state of the global circular economy. It quantifies
a dashboard of indicators to ground abstract
concepts in reality, spark action, pinpoint where
targets are missing, and provide a jumping-off
point for decision-makers and advisors across
government and industry to take action.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 16

 Where we are now and where we’re to the way the global economy operates, material
extraction is set to rise by 60% (compared to a 2020
heading
baseline) by 2060.11
Over the past eight years of Circularity Gap Reports
Although material consumption has been
(CGR®), our opening statements have remained
instrumental in raising living standards over the past
much the same: relentless growth in global resource
century, we’ve now passed the point of diminishing
use—driven by the continued expansion of global
returns in many parts of the world. The current
economic activity—is putting Earth’s systems under
scale of global resource use is the main driver of the
extreme pressure. In 2025, the situation is unchanged.
triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity
The latest Global Resources Outlook paints a sobering
loss and pollution, with material extraction and
picture of trends in natural resource use, showing that
use driving around two-thirds of greenhouse gas
global material extraction has more than tripled in the
emissions and over 90% of total biodiversity loss
last fifty years. We have now surpassed a landmark
and water stress, for example.12 As of 2023, we’ve
of 100 billion tonnes of material extraction per year.
also surpassed six of the nine planetary boundaries
The global population has not grown at the same
vital to life on this planet.13 Business as usual simply
rate, showing that this has only played a partial role
cannot continue if we’re to achieve global climate,
in spiralling material consumption. Instead, per capita
biodiversity, and pollution targets and protect and
consumption has swelled from 8.4 tonnes in 1970 to
preserve Earth’s life support system.
12.2 tonnes in 2020, fuelled by urbanisation, growing
GDP and increased affluence. This unfettered growth
isn’t set to slow—without deep, systematic changes

110

100 Crops

90 Crop residues

Grazed biomass and fodder crops

80 Other biomass

Coal
70 Petroleum
Natural gas
Other fossil fuels
60 Iron ore concentrates and compounds
Copper ore concentrates and compounds
Gold ore concentrates and compounds
Other metal ores
50

40
Global material extraction (Gt)

Sand gravel and crushed rock for construction

30

20

Limestone

10
Structural clays

Circle Economy - CGR® 2025

Other non-metallic minerals
0
70

75

80

85

90

95

10

15

20

Year
0
0

20
20
19

19
19
19

20
20
19
19

20

Figure one portrays the evolution of global material extraction from 1970 to 2023 by
main material group, as well as the top materials driving this growth.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 17

The widening chasm of resource At the same time, material consumption has driven
environmental degradation in countries with fewer
distribution
means to mitigate these impacts: per capita, higher-
Exponential growth in resource consumption hasn’t income countries are responsible for ten times the
been evenly distributed around the globe: high- climate impacts of lower-income countries.17 Lower-
income countries have a per capita material footprint income countries bear the brunt of the consequences,
six times that of lower-income countries—24 tonnes with climate-related natural disasters increasing
compared to 4 tonnes.14 At the same time, high- eight-fold in the last decade compared to 1980 levels.18
income countries represent less than one-fifth of Reducing inequality both between and within nations
the global population, with the EU and US alone will be key to tackling the triple planetary crisis: in
consuming more than half the world’s materials the process of achieving the estimated ‘sustainable’
while housing 10% of the world’s population.15 Much level of consumption—8 tonnes per capita—that has
of this material use can be attributed to the build-up served as a benchmark throughout past Circularity
of infrastructure and capital equipment, as well as Gap analyses, higher-income countries will need to
higher consumption among citizens in upper-middle drastically reduce their consumption while lower-
and high-income countries.16 However, beyond a income countries can increase consumption to build
certain point, increasing material consumption up necessary service provisioning (renewable energy
does not necessarily translate to greater well-being: infrastructure and sustainable housing, for example).19
many high-income countries have already reached a
saturation point, where further increases in resource
use lead to diminishing returns in terms of human
development gains (see Figure two). Striking a
balance between resource consumption and
human development is crucial.

1.0
GSD Target

0.9

Very high HDI

0.8

High HDI
0.7

0.6
Human development index

0.5

0.4
Figure two shows the
relationship between raw Circle Economy - CGR® 2025
material consumption
per capita (2021) and
0 8 20 50
the Human Development
Index (HDI) (2022). Raw material consumption per capita (tonnes/capita)

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 18

The circular economy as a means to
an end
Stakeholders, including governments and
The circular economy, a toolbox of strategies businesses, have a crucial role to play in
and solutions that rethink and optimise how we generating momentum for the circular
consume materials, can deliver wellbeing for all while transition and creating the necessary
preserving the environment and ecosystem services market conditions for industry to shift
that underpin a functioning economy, including away from business as usual. This could
clean air, water, natural spaces and biodiversity. mean levelling the playing field through
Imagine the circular economy as a way to rewire how regulations, taxes, and subsidies, as well
an economy operates physically: it reduces physical as directly supporting, procuring and
throughputs—and thus environmental impacts—by advocating for low-carbon, resource-
optimising the transformation of resources into efficient energy technologies, circular
societal needs that contribute to human well-being, and regenerative farming practices,
such as housing, mobility and nutrition. and high-value waste management
We know what the circular economy has to offer: infrastructure, for example. At the
the Circularity Gap Report 2023 found that we can same time, businesses have much to
reverse the overshoot of planetary limits while gain by not waiting for regulations to
providing for similar needs with just 70% of the change their practices. By proactively
materials we use now. 20 This would mean reducing applying circular economy solutions in
yearly material consumption to around 8.5 tonnes procurement, product and service design,
per capita, approximately equal to the weight of operations, and waste management,
two adult elephants, for example. This is roughly businesses can mitigate resource risks,
on par with 1970s figures. While this may still seem from supply chain disruptions and price
like quite a lot, it’s important to remember that per volatility to legislative pressure and
capita consumption averages include far more than reputational risks. 21 What’s more, circular
an individual’s yearly purchases and take into account products and services allow businesses to
the construction of buildings, infrastructure and increase brand value, increase customer
equipment, just to name a few. engagement and loyalty, enter new
markets, cut costs and stay ahead of the
Crucially, the linear economy wasn’t created by
competition in terms of innovation.
chance—it was designed. The activities supporting
the unsustainable, linear production and
consumption patterns driving the mismanagement
of natural resources are deeply rooted in our existing
system. To successfully transition to a circular
economy, we need to change the rules of the game.
Fundamentally, this requires a shift in behaviours,
norms and belief systems, as well as dismantling
the tangled web of laws, regulations and policies
that allow for—and often incentivise—boundless
extraction, emissions, and waste.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 19

Measuring the circular economy The legacy of the global Circularity
To deliver on the circular economy’s potential, we Gap Reports: Updating the
need an effective means to measure how materials circularity metric and expanding
are being used at the global level. This provides our dashboard of indicators
a solid evidence base for local, national and
The circular economy agenda has come a long way—
international changemakers from which to measure
particularly regarding monitoring—since the launch
and monitor progress. Such oversight is crucial in
of our first Circularity Gap Report in 2018. Our Reports
revealing the true extent and impact of material
have taken a system-wide perspective to monitor
mismanagement, helping policymakers pinpoint
and measure the global circular economy. We have
where changes are needed most and helping
historically reported on the Circularity Metric, which
industries set benchmarks and baselines to start
measures the proportion of secondary material
monitoring progress. A more detailed, multifaceted
consumption out of total material consumption
understanding of circularity can bridge gaps between
for an economy. This is an important indicator for
high-level policies and practical, impactful changes
measuring the circular state of an economy. However,
across industries, moving us closer to a sustainable,
this Metric is just one part of a broader picture.
inclusive and regenerative economy. The upcoming
Global Circularity Protocol for businesses, for For this reason, the Circularity Gap Report 2025 aims
example, will play a key role in establishing a shared to provide a comprehensive report on the state
framework for this effort, ensuring consistency of the global circular economy, with the view that
in how circularity is tracked and compared across the Circularity Metric—while important—is only one
regions and industries. piece of a large and complex puzzle. This report
aims to provide more detail and support practical
We cannot recycle our way out of the current linear
decision-making by opening up the Circularity ‘Gap’.
economy: regardless of how efficiently we use
materials and recycle them at end-of-life, the sheer This report presents and builds on the Circularity
scale of current material extraction is unsupportable Indicator Set, a dashboard of 11 indicators
for a healthy and safe planet. This underscores the that provide a ‘report card’ for global material
need to first and foremost focus on the absolute circularity. Collectively, the Indicator Set examines
scales of extracted materials alongside relative the relationships between resources we take from
rates. As long as extraction continues to increase, nature, how we use them, and their impact on the
incremental improvements in slowing, regenerating environment. Represented as shares that add up to
and cycling material flows will not be able to offset 100% of material inputs and 100% of outputs such
the significant environmental impacts to come. This as waste, emissions, and recycled materials, these
principle is illustrated by the Circularity Metric, which indicators can be viewed as ‘levers’ to improve the
has fallen year on year since Circle Economy first Circularity Metric. By reducing indicators that capture
began measuring, despite gradual increases in the linear processes—such as disposing of materials
scale of secondary material use. without recovery or combusting fossil fuels for
energy—we have room for the Metric’s share to grow.
Looking at rates—like the Circularity Metric—as
opposed to scales alone gives us insight into how The Circularity Indicator Set lends itself well to
quickly resource stocks are depleted and waste is integration with other leading indicator frameworks
generated, which signals how quickly environmental for the circular economy: the ISO/DIS standard22 and
pressures are building. By monitoring how these the Conference of European Statisticians Guidelines
rates change over time, we can identify trends for Measuring Circular Economy, Part A: Conceptual
in resource efficiency and sufficiency, pinpoint Framework, Indicators and Measurement Framework. 23
opportunities to decouple wellbeing from material
consumption and gauge circular progress. This
dual focus on both absolute figures and relative
rates is essential to build resilience and shape an
environmentally responsible global economy.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 20

This year, the Circularity Gap Report provides an This analysis has a global scope. However, the
expanded report on the state of global circularity. measurement framework can be set up at the
It builds out the Circularity Indicator Set to (multi- and sub-)national level to account for trade
encompass the beneficial aspects of other leading and the movement of materials between nations
frameworks and provide further context to the for both production and consumption. At the level
headline indicators. These are elaborated upon of businesses and industries, the scope and
through more than 20 other leading indicators— consequent data collection should be aligned
global statistics on waste collection and recycling, to operations and the relevant aspects of the
energy consumption and land protection, for supply chain, whether regional or multinational. 24
example. This can help leaders and decision- The Circularity Indicator Set can be used as a
makers decide where to focus and enact circular benchmark and reference if these differences in
solutions that are in alignment with the ultimate scope are considered during interpretation.
goal of improving wellbeing within environmental
This year, the Circularity Gap Report provides a
limits. The result is a cohesive and comprehensive
global benchmark for circularity on a range of
framework suitable for many aims: the headline
dimensions relevant to both governments and
indicators, for example, are helpful for raising
businesses. Through this report, governments
awareness and communicating circular progress
and businesses can gain an understanding of
at a high level, while lower-tier indicators can
the global state of circularity and the risks of
provide government officials, policy analysts
continuing along a linear path.
and other more technical stakeholders with the
in-depth information needed to support decision
making and agenda setting.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 21

 A report card for the
2 global economy
A comprehensive look into the
state of global circularity

The circular economy is a means for delivering

wellbeing within planetary boundaries—but
how can we take meaningful steps towards
dismantling entrenched processes and rewire
the way we relate to the material world? This
chapter opens up the Circularity Metric (6.9%) and
Circularity Gap (the remaining 93.1%), exploring
11 headline indicators and 23 sub-indicators for
circularity. It quantifies how materials flow in
and out of the global economy and clarifies how
various levers can be pulled to boost circularity.
The data reveals a troubling truth: progress is
underway in some areas, but negative trends are
offsetting improvements. Secondary material
use, for example, has increased—from 7.1 billion
tonnes in 2018 to 7.3 billion tonnes in 2021—but
the Circularity Metric continues to fall due to rapid
growth in material extraction across the board.
At the same time, the scale of Virgin, Non-
Renewable Materials disposed of without
recovery has risen: these are materials that could
contribute to the Circularity Metric but currently
aren’t. The absolute scale of biomass extraction,
fossil fuel use and net additions to stocks have
all risen between 2018 and 2021 despite rates
remaining relatively stable, underscoring the
crucial importance of reducing total material
throughput. Although some targets are in place—
caps on greenhouse gas emissions and targets for
land protection, for example—we need concerted
action from businesses and others to cut material
use. Currently, we are not on track to meet a
single indicator explored in this chapter. This
chapter’s ‘report card’ shows that we have yet to
get a passing grade. The prognosis is clear: we
need strong, science-based targets to generate
international momentum towards a circular
economy and sustainable resource use.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 22

Understanding material flows: How to what comes out. The moment a material leaves the
environment and enters the economy—whether
interpret the Circularity Indicator Set
extracted from the earth, harvested, or otherwise
Extraction and consumption are growing at almost sourced—sets the stage for its entire lifecycle. In a
unprecedented levels, but measuring how and where manufacturing facility, for example, the types and
these material flows are directed can give crucial quantities of raw materials (input) influence the
insight into the circular economy’s transformative quantities of finished products, as well as the waste
potential. This chapter opens up the Circularity Gap and emissions generated from the production
and gives insight into the global material budget process.
through the Circularity Indicator Set, which measures
• Output: Each input-side indicator has a
Circular material flows (Secondary Materials
corresponding output. While outputs—like waste,
and Carbon-Neutral Biomass), Linear material
emissions and recycled materials—are directly
flows (Non-Carbon-Neutral Biomass, Virgin, Non-
linked to inputs, there’s often a time lag between
Renewable Materials, and Fossil Fuels used for
materials entering and exiting the system. This is
energy), and Net stock build-up (Net Additions to
because materials take different pathways once
Stock*). Material flows, whether linear or circular, can
they enter the economy: some are short-lived—
be broken down into two ‘cycles’:
like fuels burnt for energy, fertilisers dissipated
• The technical cycle relates to the management into the soil or packaging and consumer goods
of non-renewable and largely non-biological that are discarded soon after use—and pass
resources that are difficult to reintroduce into through the system rapidly, becoming outputs
the biosphere safely. Examples include concrete, without significant changes in their resource group
plastics and metals, as well as some processed composition. Other materials enter the economy
biological materials, such as timber, paper, textiles and become part of Accumulated Stocks—like
and bioplastics—this is referred to as ‘technical buildings, infrastructure and vehicles—and remain
biomass’ throughout this chapter. Materials that in use for years. Because past and present material
are part of the technical cycle fall into one of four use patterns differ in composition, changes
categories: they become Secondary Materials, between input- and output-side indicators are
are Virgin, Non-Renewable Materials destined for largely influenced by the dynamics of stock renewal
disposal without recovery, are added to Stocks, or and depletion. Simply put, the materials flowing
are Fossil Fuels combusted for energy. out of the economy today are not shaped just by
what is entering the economy now but largely by
• The ecological cycle relates to the management
the gradual release of materials from Accumulated
of renewable, living resources that can cycle in and
Stocks. This highlights the importance of stocks in
out of the biosphere. It includes biomass used for
determining outputs and, ultimately, the circularity
feed, food or fuel. Materials in the ecological cycle
of the economy: effective stock management is
are either Carbon-Neutral or Non-Carbon-Neutral
crucial to maximise circularity and reduce waste
biomass. As noted, it’s important to understand
over time.
that not all biomass stays within the ecological
cycle, with a portion captured by other indicators.

For each indicator, performance is measured on

both the input side—how materials flow into the * The term ‘net’ is important in the context of stock-flow dynamics.
economy—and the output side—how these materials We can distinguish three different types of stock accumulation:
Accumulated Stock, which measures the total volume of materials
are processed as waste at their end-of-life. The
added to socioeconomic stocks over time; Gross Additions to Stock,
Circularity Metric, for example, is an input-focused which measures the total amount of materials used in long-lived
indicator: it measures the share of secondary applications (of over one year) in the accounting year. In the context of
materials flowing into an economy and thus differs this analysis, this can include both virgin and secondary materials; and
Net Additions to Stock, which measures the net amount of materials
from the global recycling rate, which is an output-
in long-lived applications after accounting for materials removed from
focused indicator. accumulated stocks through Demolition and Discard in the accounting
year. This flow only contains virgin materials, as the amount of
• Input: We start with—and give more relevance
secondary materials in both Gross Additions to Stock and Demolition
to—input-side indicators simply because the and Discard is assumed to be equal within the same accounting year.
materials that enter a system ultimately determine This report’s analysis measures Net Additions to Stock.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 23

On both the input and output sides, indicators are and Table two for 2021, the data year for this report,
represented as percentages that sum to 100%, and and 2018 to give insight into trends over the last
thus, each represents a fraction of how materials years. These indicators are defined and qualified
enter and leave the economy globally. Values for throughout the remainder of this chapter.
each headline indicator are provided in Table one

2018 2021
Indicator
Scale (billion Scale (billion
Rate (%) Rate (%)
tonnes) tonnes)

Circularity Metric (Input Technical

Circular 7.2% 7.1 6.9% 7.3
Cycling)
material
flows Carbon-Neutral Biomass (Input
21.6% 21.5 21.5% 22.8
Ecological Cycling Potential)

Non-Carbon-Neutral Biomass (Input

2.6% 2.6 2.2% 2.3
Non-Renewable Biomass)

Linear Other Virgin, Non-Renewable Materials

material 18.0% 17.9 18.1% 19.2
(Input Non-Renewable Flows)
flows
Fossil Fuels used for energy purposes
13.9% 13.9 13.3% 14.1
(Input Non-Circular Flows)

Net stock
build-up Net Additions to Stock 36.7% 36.6 38.0% 40.3

Table one provides values for each headline indicator on the input side for 2018 and 2021, the year of latest available data.25

2018 2021
Indicator
Scale (billion Scale (billion
Rate (%) Rate (%)
tonnes) tonnes)

Waste destined for recycling (Output

11.1% 7.1 11.2% 7.3
Technical Cycling)
Circular
material Waste and emissions from Carbon-
flows Neutral Biomass (Output Ecological 34.5% 22.1 35.3% 23.2
Cycling Potential)

Waste and emissions from Non-

Carbon-Neutral Biomass (Output Non- 4.1% 2.6 3.4% 2.2
Renewable Biomass)
Linear
Waste disposed of without recovery
material 28.3% 18.1 28.6% 18.8
(Output Non-Renewable Flows)
flows
Emissions and waste from Fossil Fuels
used for energy purposes (Output Non- 22.0% 14.1 21.6% 14.2
Circular Flows)

Table two provides values for each headline indicator for the output side for 2018 and 2021, the years with the latest available data.26

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 24

 These headline indicators provide a consolidated Figure three breaks down the shares of each
Circularity Indicator Set big-picture overview of the state of circularity, but component of the Circularity Indicator Set for
of the global economy it’s also important to go a layer deeper to provide 2021 (the latest available data year), showing
even more context for what these global, macro-level how materials enter the economy, are used, and
figures are telling us. This chapter explores relevant eventually become outputs.
sub-indicators for each of the headline indicators
listed above, along with insights on their importance
and guidance on how these indicators can be
interpreted and used to track the transition.

INPUT
Of the 106.1 billion tonnes of processed
materials flowing into the OUTPUT
global economy:
Of the 65.7 billion tonnes of processed
output flowing out of the
global economy:
6.9 % are Secondar y
Materials ( Technical 7. 3 Gt
Cycling rate)
Circularity

Traded secondary materials Secondary

11.2 % are waste destined for
21.5 % are Carbon-Neutral 0.4 Gt materials 7. 3 Gt
Biomass (Ecological Cycling 7.3 Gt rec ycling
22.8 Gt International Energetic
Secondary Net balancing
Potential rate) trade use

Circularity
materials items
38.5 Gt 36.6 Gt 4.2 Gt
7.3 Gt
Emissions
35.3 % are waste and emissions
2.2 % are Non-Carbon- Output to to air 23.2 Gt
2. 3 Gt environment 43.5 Gt from Carbon-Neutral Biomass
Neutral Biomass (Non- 62.6 Gt
Renewable Biomass rate)
Material
18.1 % are other Virgin, 19.2 Gt extraction
Domestic
Circle Economy
2.2 Gt 3.4 % are waste and emissions
Linearity

98.8 Gt material use CGR® 2025 from Non-Carbon-Neutral Biomass

Non-Renewable Materials
67.2 Gt
(Non-Renewable rate) Gross Solid and
addition Short-lived liquid waste 18.8 Gt 28.6 % are waste disposed of

Linearity
Total Technical to stocks materials
13.3 % are Fossil Fuels 19.1 Gt
14.1 Gt material use use 62.6 Gt 6.9 Gt without recover y
used for energ y purposes 106.1 Gt 69.5 Gt
Demolition
(Non-Circular Flows rate) and discard
Net addition 22.2 Gt
to stocks 14.2 Gt 21.6 % are emissions and waste
40.4 Gt from Fossil Fuels used for
energ y purposes
Stock build-up

38.0 % are virgin

materials accumulated 40. 3 Gt
Processed materials Processed output
in Stocks (Net Additions 106.1 Gt 65.7 Gt
to Stock)

Figure three illustrates the Circularity Indicator Set

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 25
of the global economy using 2021 data.27
2.1 Circular
material flows 11.2%
Circular flows refer to materials that flow through the
economy in a way that prioritises reuse, recycling, of materials flowing out of the
and regeneration over virgin extraction and waste economy are…
disposal. The Circularity Indicator Set differentiates
Waste destined for recycling. 28
between two types of circular flows, technical and
ecological, corresponding to Secondary Materials
and Carbon-Neutral Biomass, respectively.

2.1.1 Secondary Materials

Secondary Materials represent the materials collected,
processed and recovered from waste for secondary
(Input) Secondary
use in an economy, whether global, national or Materials broken down by
local. These can substitute virgin materials, which
material group
are extracted directly from nature. This indicator is
quantified on the input and output side:

6.9%
of materials flowing into the
economy are…
Secondary Materials—including non-
metallic minerals, metals, fossil fuels
used for material purposes, and technical
biomass—both recycled and downcycled.
This share represents the portion of
secondary materials out of the total
material input of the global economy,
which includes all primary and secondary
materials.

This indicator is referred to as

the Circularity Metric.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 26

 it requires fundamentally restructuring how we
extract, produce and consume materials. The
Desired outcome: Circularity Gap Report 2021, for example, found that
rolling out these deep structural changes across
Maximise the use of secondary key systems—such as housing, food, and mobility—
materials by: 1) Systematically reducing would reduce material use by approximately one-
raw material extraction and overall third—shifting us much closer to a sustainable level
material throughput, 2) Ensuring that of material use, estimated at 8 tonnes per capita. 31
recycled and by-product materials This exemplifies the importance of understanding the
become a more mainstream input across absolute scale of virgin and secondary material use,
all economic sectors, and 3) Prioritising alongside rates like the Circularity Metric.
the optimisation of material recovery
from Accumulated Stocks such as
buildings and infrastructure.

Commentary:
The share of Secondary Materials entering the
global economy is low—and steadily falling year
on year, from 7.2% in 2018 to 6.9% as of the latest
available data (2021). This decline is largely due
to sustained growth in overall material use, which
outpaces growth in secondary material use. In other
words, as long as material consumption keeps rising,
completely closing material loops is incompatible
with growth in material throughput. We now know
the impact of current and unprecedented levels of
virgin material use: high greenhouse gas emissions,
biodiversity loss and pollution. 29 In fact, our Circularity
Gap Report 2021 found that as much as 70% of global
emissions stem from material handling and use. 30 This
highlights the need to reduce virgin material use while
increasing secondary material use—both of which
will drive up the Circularity Metric. Achieving this
will involve cycling all materials that could be cycled
but are not (see page 40) and reducing other linear
activities, such as fossil fuel use (see page 44).

Increasing circularity is far more complex than

just increasing material cycling. While increasing
secondary material use as much as possible is
important, there’s a natural limit to how much
the Circularity Metric can grow. Even if all waste
currently not being recycled was recycled—without
reducing overall material throughput—we would only
reach a Circularity Metric of roughly 25%. This puts
our conception of ‘circularity’ in perspective: true
circularity isn’t about recovering and recycling more,

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 27

By breaking down current sources of secondary significant potential for improvement. Special
material use, we can better understand wastes like healthcare waste, hazardous waste and
opportunities for improvement (see Figure electronic waste represent just 2.6%.
four). Approximately half (49.6%) of the Circularity
Boosting secondary material use at a macro level
Metric is composed of recycled construction
is a complex challenge. What concrete actions
and demolition waste—a heavy waste stream
are needed to move the needle and ensure more
by mass. The built environment can be seen as a
materials make their way back into the cycle? To
huge repository or ‘bank’ of materials that can be
understand and measure progress towards higher
recovered and reused at their end-of-life. However,
secondary material use, it’s important to break
only 22% of construction and demolition waste
down the factors influencing these indicators using
is recycled, leaving potential for improvement.
a set of sub-indicators for both material inputs and
What’s more, it’s likely that a significant portion of
outputs. Table three provides an overview of these
‘secondary’ construction and demolition materials
indicators, their current status, and whether or not
is represented by aggregates used for low-value
they have relevant global or sub-global targets.
applications such as backfilling. Industrial waste—
comprising metal scrap, sludges, chemical waste, Input: Virgin material use has a significant impact
offcuts, and industrial packaging, for example—is on the Circularity Metric. At a global level, it directly
a close second, representing 44% of secondary corresponds to material extraction, which provides
material use. Of all industrial waste generated, a snapshot of the volume and type of materials
approximately 41% re-enters the economy. extracted from the Earth and signals the extent
Municipal solid waste—the everyday items we to which economies depend on them. Global
use and then recycle—contributes a much smaller material extraction32 has more than tripled in the
portion, at just 3.8% of the total. It should be last 50 years, reaching 99.8 billion tonnes in 2021
noted that global municipal solid waste collection (see Figure one). As extraction continues to rise,
rates average around 80%, but only 15% of the the ability of secondary materials to meaningfully
total makes its way back into the cycle—indicating reduce reliance on new extraction is shrinking.

Global secondary material

consumption

Municipal solid waste

3.8%
Industrial
waste
44.0%
Circle Economy - CGR® 2025

Construction &
93.1% 6.9% demolition waste
49.6%

Special waste
2.6%

Raw materials Figure four illustrates the breakdown of secondary material use—the
Secondary materials Circularity Metric—on a global scale.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 28

Output: As material use grows, so does waste becomes waste. The relatively high global waste
generation, totalling 26.4 billion tonnes globally. 33 collection rate (82%) and low global recycling rate
While a large part of the materials extracted remain (27% 35) shed light on the effectiveness of recycling
within the economy for years as Accumulated systems on a global scale, revealing a significant
Stocks (see page 23), a share becomes ‘output’—in gap between collection and recycling. These figures
the form of emissions and solid and liquid waste— are important to track as waste must be collected,
in a relatively short amount of time. Although sorted, processed and recycled to be transformed
minimising waste generation should be the into secondary materials, which can then re-enter
priority, measuring waste as a share of Processed the economy. However, a portion of collected waste
Outputs—the materials that leave an economy is instead directed to controlled or uncontrolled
as either emissions or physical waste—gives disposal. In countries where waste management
insight into which portion of these outputs can be infrastructure is still developing, tracking the
recovered and, ideally, recycled. This share stands at controlled disposal rate (globally 15.6%) will be an
45.2% globally. 34 A higher share of waste compared important interim step. Strengthening controlled
to emissions (see page 44) points to a larger pool disposal systems can help reduce uncontrolled
of resources available for recovery. Optimising how waste dumping while laying the groundwork for
these outputs are dealt with—whether they are sent expanding recycling capacity in the future.
to landfill, incineration, or recycling, for example—
will be key to minimising the share that actually

Sub-Global
Indicator Value in (year) Trend Global Target Status
Targets (Y/N)

12.6 tonnes per capita (99.8

Global material
billion tonnes) (2021) 8 tonnes per
extraction Off-track No
12.3 tonnes per capita (95.0 capita per year37
(tonnes)36
billion tonnes) (2018)

Total waste
26.4 billion tonnes (2021)
generation None n.a. Yes
26.1 billion tonnes (2018)
(tonnes)38

Waste as
a share of 45.2% (2021)
None n.a. No
Processed 44.6% (2018)
Outputs (%)39

Waste
collection rate 82% (various reference years)* No data** None n.a. Yes
(%)40

Yes, although
most countries
Recycling rate 27.0% (2021) set recycling rates
None n.a.
(%)41 27.4% (2018) for specific waste
streams rather than
overall targets.

Controlled
15.6% (2021)
disposal rate None n.a. No
(%)42 16.0% (2018)

Table three lists each sub-indicator, elaborating on how these figures have changed over a five-year period and whether we are on
track to meet global targets (if any).
* Based on the latest available data from each country.
** Data gaps make it difficult to provide a coherent trend.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 29

 two doesn’t relate to how the biomass is extracted,
2.1.2 Carbon-Neutral Biomass but just that a portion is in excess. For more
This indicator concerns biomass used for food, feed, information on Non-Carbon-Neutral Biomass,
and fuel, such as food crops, agricultural residues skip to page 37.
or wood. It does not include certain biomass flows
like timber used for building up stock, or packaging This indicator is quantified on the input and
applications, for example. There are four criteria for output side:
biomass to be considered circular, described in depth
on page 32.43 Circular biomass must:

1. Minimise environmental impact: Assess and

21.5%
reduce the impact of biomass extraction on
ecosystem services.

2. Ensure renewability and regeneration: Use

biological materials in a way that respects their of materials flowing into the
natural renewal rates and prioritise regenerative economy are…
practices that lead to improved outcomes
Carbon-Neutral Biomass. This figure
(afforestation and rewilding, for example).
quantifies the share of renewable primary
3. Cascade use: Reuse bio-based products and biomass inputs in processed materials.
cascade materials before discarding them.

4. Close the nutrient cycle: Ensure nutrients return

safely to the biosphere at their end-of-life.

Measuring the circularity of ‘technical’ materials is

easier than that of biological materials, as they are

35.3%
processed and reused within industrial systems.
While biological materials do flow into the industrial
system, their circularity broadly relates to how they’re
returned to the natural system and the health of the of materials flowing out of the
broader ecosystem that they belong to. This is not economy are…
always concretely defined nor easily measured.
Waste and emissions from Carbon-
Because determining the circularity of biological
Neutral Biomass.
materials is conceptually complex and difficult to
measure, 44 this indicator captures biomass that meets
the minimum criterion of carbon neutrality, meaning it
absorbs as much carbon during its growth as it emits
when used. This partially addresses the first and last
criteria listed above. While some biomass captured (Input) Carbon-Neutral
by this indicator may meet some or even all of the Biomass broken down by
remaining criteria, measuring or guaranteeing this
is not possible due to data limitations. Biomass that
material group
meets none of the criteria is measured by another
indicator: Non-Carbon-Neutral Biomass.

All biomass that stays within the ecological cycle falls

into two categories: carbon-neutral and non-carbon-
neutral. Carbon-Neutral Biomass meets certain
criteria to be considered carbon neutral, while Non-
Carbon-Neutral Biomass exceeds these limits and is
considered ‘in the red’. This distinction between the

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 30

Desired outcome:
Transition to exclusively using biomass that:
1) Respects natural cycles—such as the carbon,
nitrogen and water cycles—and ensures carbon
neutrality and full nutrient cycling in the right
place and at the right pace; 2) Prevents land
degradation to preserve and enhance complex,
biodiverse ecosystems with healthy soils, and
3) Maximises its value through cascading where
possible: reusing it multiple times, through
multiple stages, before it is eventually discarded.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 31

Measuring the circularity of biomass 4. Close the nutrient cycle: This means that
biological materials can biodegrade and
Current circular economy monitoring systems are
safely return to the biosphere at their end-
largely designed to track and interpret technical
of-life. This involves improving material
cycles and focus on the reuse of materials within this
separability and biodegradability, minimising
sphere. However, this approach means that it’s difficult
harmful substances in emissions to the
to monitor and capture circular economy potential
environment and returning nutrients to
fully, as the circularity of biomass is not adequately
the ecosystem in a place and at a rate that
captured. Biomass is not inherently circular, and the
supports regeneration. ‘In place’ refers
ecological costs of its (over)extraction, from land-use
to the principle that nutrients should be
change and the disruption of nutrient cycles to habitat
returned to the place in an ecosystem
and biodiversity loss, can no longer be overlooked. To
where they are needed to sustain biological
be fully circular, biomass must:
processes rather than deposited where
1. Minimise environmental impact: This means they could cause harm—for example,
assessing and reducing the impact of resource eutrophication in water bodies. ‘At rate’
extraction on ecosystem services—the benefits refers to the principle that nutrient cycling
nature provides to humans, including clean air and should align with an ecosystem’s natural
water, climate regulation, and natural resources— regenerative capacity, being reintroduced
including those resulting from land-use change at a pace that an ecosystem can absorb,
and resource depletion. It also involves accounting process and use without being disrupted.
for the carbon balance by tracking biogenic carbon Note that ‘nutrients’ here refer to nitrogen,
flows—sequestration, storage, and release—and phosphorus, sulphur, carbon and water.
their impact on the global climate. These flows
differ from fossil carbon in that they cycle through Due to methodological constraints and current
the atmosphere over much shorter timescales. data availability, it is not possible to assess
2. Ensure renewability and regeneration: This all of these criteria. This is why Ecological
means using biological resources in a way that, at Cycling Potential takes carbon neutrality as a
the very least, respects their natural renewal rate, minimum criterion, which partially addresses
prioritising sustainable sourcing to maintain long- the first and fourth criteria listed in this box.
term availability. This includes recognising that old, This approach considers land use, land-use
wild ecosystems—such as mature forests—provide change and forestry emissions to determine
far greater biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and which changes in ecosystem carbon stocks
ecosystem stability compared to new plantations. result from biomass extraction. This is a
Preserving and sustainably managing natural minimal requirement but an incomplete one:
ecosystems is critical to maintaining these unique consider, for example, a sustainably managed
and irreplaceable benefits. forest where trees are replanted to replace
those harvested. These activities may be
3. Optimise cascading use: This means maximising
carbon neutral, but only considering this aspect
the value of biological resources 45 by identifying
does not account for the loss of the ecological
pathways for their multiple uses and streams,
complexity and biodiversity that are hallmarks
ensuring resources are reused effectively
of old-growth forests. Managed forests may
before they reach their end-of-life. For example,
be monocultures or have a limited number
agricultural residues can first be used for materials
of species, making them less resilient and
such as bioplastics or paper, then as animal
valuable—even if they’re carbon neutral.
bedding or compost, and finally for bioenergy.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 32

 Commentary: The scale of biomass extraction is high and a
key driver of environmental impacts. Despite its
There are no established methodologies for
declining share in global material extraction (from
reliably measuring the circularity of biomass use,
41% in 1970 to 26% in 2021), in absolute terms,
but considering the carbon balance of biomass
biomass extraction has more than doubled in the
use is a first step. This indicator considers biomass
past 50 years, increasing from 10.8 billion tonnes
that is carbon neutral as a minimum criterion for
in 1970 to 26.3 billion tonnes in 2021 (see Figure
measuring its circularity. While a rate of 21.5%
five). Within this context—and contrary to common
may seem positive, biomass extraction remains
assumptions—biomass extraction and use is a
synonymous with a number of uncaptured negative
significant driver of environmental impacts. It’s among
environmental impacts. Because of this, a more
the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions,
circular and sustainable world would not necessarily
representing 18% of the total—largely linked to food
result in an increase in the rate or scale of Carbon-
and feed production—while clearing land for crops is
Neutral Biomass extraction. Regardless of whether
a key driver of habitat destruction and accounts for
this indicator grows or shrinks, it’s crucial that all
over 90% of land-use-related biodiversity loss.46 Many
materials captured by it undergo full nutrient cycling:
of these impacts are driven by global food systems,
as discussed, this important criterion is not aptly
with food and feed production accounting for 79%
reflected. In the future, identifying certification labels
of the global biomass demand considered under this
that rigorously assess all four criteria—as defined on
indicator and Non-Carbon-Neutral biomass (see page
pages 30 and 32—could be a practical approach to
37).47 A further 12% is represented by fuel, and 9% is
calculating the share of circular biomass.
represented by other uses, such as straw.

28

40%
24

Crops

20
30%

Share of biomass in global material extraction

16

Crop residues
Global biomass extraction (Gt)

12 20%

8
10%
Grazed biomass and fodder crops

Wood
Circle Economy - CGR® 2025
0 0%
70

75

80

90

95

10

15

20

Year
8

0
0

20
20
19

19
19
19

20
20
19
19

20

Figure five illustrates the evolution of global biomass extraction and its share of
total material extraction between 1970 and 2021.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 33

Developing a more sustainable and circular global of both the circular economy and the bioeconomy
economy requires transforming land use and and aims to optimise the use of renewable biological
agriculture. A disproportionate fraction of global land resources while minimising waste and environmental
is used intensively, primarily for agricultural purposes impact through circular practices.
such as pasture and animal feed production:48 half
To understand and measure progress towards a more
the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture,
circular bioeconomy, it is therefore important to break
with 80% of this dedicated to livestock. Despite
down the factors influencing these indicators through
the space required to rear livestock and grow feed
a number of sub-indicators. These indicators’ status—
crops, livestock provides only a fraction of the global
and whether or not they have relevant global or sub-
calorie supply.49 On a planet with limited space,
global targets—is summarised in Table four.
this inefficiency has significant consequences.
As agricultural land continues to expand—often Input: Global biomass extraction is a key driver of
encroaching on forests, wetlands and other wild environmental impacts: its scale is crucial to track.
ecosystems—we continue to witness a severe retreat In 2021, this indicator stood at 26.3 billion tonnes,
of nature. This is the main cause of land use and equivalent to 3.3 tonnes per capita. 56 Various biomass
land-use change emissions through deforestation, materials and farming practices have different
as well as biodiversity loss and soil degradation. 50 At associated impacts: livestock systems, for example,
the same time, we waste about one-third of all food have much higher material, carbon and land footprints
produced, contributing as much as 10% of global than crops cultivated for direct human use. 57 This
emissions. 51 This means valuable land is used for is why measuring extraction indicators by biomass
food that never gets consumed—land that could type and activity can help indicate where the most
instead contribute to carbon sequestration and impact can be made. Water stress—which measures
biodiversity. To rebalance global land use, we need the share of total human water withdrawals relative to
to redesign the food system into a holistic, circular available freshwater resources—provides important
and regenerative system that safeguards planetary insight into the sustainability of biomass production,
and human health. 52 Leveraging a sustainable global especially in water-scarce regions. 58 Globally, water
food system’s full potential requires transforming stress is 18.6%, but levels vary substantially by region.
both production and consumption patterns. This Central and Southern Asia have high water stress
includes minimising synthetic fertilisers that pollute levels—surpassing 75%—while Northern Africa’s water
soil and water, prioritising regenerative practices stress exceeds 100%, requiring groundwater depletion
like agroforestry and integrated livestock systems, or desalination, for example. In 2020, 2.4 billion people
and promoting nourishing diets with more plant- lived in water-stressed countries. 59 Measuring water
based foods and fewer ultra-processed products. 53,54 requirements alongside biomass types and activities
These practices can decrease demand for land and can ensure that land use and biomass extraction align
other resources, such as water, freeing up space for with hydrological cycles, allowing water resources
rewilding and reforestation, helping restore damaged to be regenerated.60 Sustainably optimising biomass
ecosystems, expanding global carbon sinks, and use requires regenerative agriculture, better water
allowing biodiversity to flourish. It will also build up management, and shifting demand away from
the resilience of food production and improve food resource-intensive products such as meat and dairy.
security in many countries and regions. This is especially important given that agriculture is a
key driver of water stress, accounting for 72% of global
Building a sustainable, circular bioeconomy is
freshwater withdrawals.61
essential for advancing sustainable resource
use, but there is no harmonised methodology
to measure and monitor it. Measuring the rate of
Carbon-Neutral Biomass is also important to monitor
the sustainability and circularity of the bioeconomy,
which covers all sectors and activities that rely on
biological resources (animals, plants, microorganisms
and derived biomass, including organic waste) and
their ecological functions. 55 A ‘circular bioeconomy’
is an economic model that combines the principles

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 34

At the same time, positive indicators, such as the
share of forested land (31.1%) (bolstered by land
protection rates), are essential to show where and to
what extent progress is being made. In 2021, forested
areas (including non-natural forests) represented
nearly one-third of global land area, down from
32.5% in 1990.62 The average forest area per person
has decreased from 1.4 hectares in 1960 to about 0.5
hectares as of 2019, reflecting both population growth
and forest loss.63 Similarly, tracking the reclamation
rate of organic substances can play a crucial role
in enhancing the circularity of global biomass inputs
by ensuring that organic waste—like food scraps,
agricultural residues, manure, and biodegradable
products—is effectively reintegrated into the
biological cycle. This indicator is key for monitoring full
nutrient cycling, a key criterion for ‘circular’ biomass.
However, no global data on this indicator is available.

Output: On the output side, measuring global

emissions from land use, land-use change and
forestry (LULUCF) captures the impact of activities
like deforestation, the draining of peatlands, and the
expansion of agricultural land, livestock pastures
and human settlements. These activities deplete
potential carbon storage and destroy natural habitats,
damaging biodiversity. Global net LULUCF emissions
account for roughly 2 (between 1.364 and 2.765) billion
tonnes of CO2e, or about 5% of total anthropogenic
emissions, a significant share of which stems from
deforestation.66 Although carbon sequestration has
the potential to offset fossil-based emissions through
natural ecological processes, LULUCF currently acts
as a net source of global emissions. Better land
management thus holds significant potential to
capture and reduce emissions, with preserving and
regenerating natural carbon sinks essential to limiting
warming to 1.5-degrees. Safeguarding and restoring
natural ecosystems offers numerous benefits
in addition to carbon sequestration—bolstering
biodiversity, for example.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 35

It’s also crucial to understand the impact of nutrients in the biological cycle. Proper wastewater treatment
used for agricultural practices (in fertilisers, for can also contribute to broader environmental goals.
example), which often end up in water systems, For example, organic matter recovered from
by measuring safely treated wastewater flows 67 wastewater can be used to generate biogas or nourish
(not available at the global level). Properly treated soils while treatment processes prevent the runoff of
wastewater supports nutrient recycling, enabling the nitrogen and phosphorus in water bodies, where they
recovery of nutrients essential to agriculture: nitrogen can cause harm (eutrophication, for example).
and phosphorus. This reduces reliance on synthetic
fertilisers and promotes the circular use of nutrients

Sub-Global
Indicator Value in (year) Trend Global Target Status
Targets (Y/N)

Global biomass 3.3 tonnes per capita (26.3

extraction billion tonnes) (2021) Stable 2 tonnes per
Off-track Yes
(tonnes per 3.3 tonnes per capita (25.7 (per capita) capita per year69
capita)68 billion tonnes) (2018)

Water stress 18.6% (2021)

None n.a. Yes
(%)70 18.3% (2018)

Share of
31.1% (2020)*
forested land 33.7%72 Off-track Yes
31.2% (2018)
(%)71

Land protection 17.6% (2024)

30%75 Off-track Yes
rate (%)73, 74 16.6% (2020)

Reclamation
rate of organic No data No data None** n.a. No
substances (%)

Emissions from
1.3–2.6 billion tonnes
LULUCF (tonnes No data None n.a. None
(2021)***
of CO2e)76

Safely treated
Not available at the
wastewater No data 60%77 n.a. Yes
global level
flows (%)

Table four lists each sub-indicator, elaborating on how these figures have changed over a five-year period and whether we are on
track to meet global targets (if any).
* Latest available data.
** Overall reclamation and recycling rates for organic waste are typically lacking and targets tend to focus on food waste reduction.
*** LULUCF data is uncertain and fluctuating, making it difficult to determine an accurate trend.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 36

2.2 Linear material
flows 3.4%
Linear flows make up the Circularity Gap: they’re
materials that follow a take-make-dispose model of materials flowing out of the
and aren’t cycled back into either technical or economy are…
ecological systems. This category comprises three
Waste and emissions from Non-Carbon-
indicators: Non-Carbon-Neutral Biomass, other
Neutral Biomass.
Virgin, Non-Renewable Materials (materials that
could be recycled but currently are not), and Fossil
Fuels used for energy (these are combusted into
the atmosphere and thus do not have the potential
for cycling, making them inherently non-circular).

2.2.1 Non-Carbon-Neutral (Input) Non-Carbon-

Biomass Neutral Biomass broken
This indicator captures the share of virgin Non-
down by material group
Carbon-Neutral Biomass—including, for instance,
crops on the input side and manure and agricultural
residues on the output side—out of total resource
use. This means that extracting and using this
biomass resulted in net positive emissions due to
land use and land cover change.

2.2%
of materials flowing into the
economy are…
Non-Carbon-Neutral Biomass.
This figure quantifies the share of
non-renewable virgin biomass inputs
in processed materials.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 37

 drive deforestation—particularly in tropical forests 83
—and forest degradation and land conversion for
Desired outcome: agriculture, for example. This could include forest
biomass harvesting for large-scale bioenergy
Eliminate the use of biomass that: production and practices like shifting cultivation,
1) Surpasses the natural rate of where plots of land are temporarily converted for
regeneration or leads to net positive agriculture and then abandoned and are unable to be
carbon emissions due to land use change, fully restored. The drainage and excavation of peat
2) Disrupts ecological timescales and for agricultural purposes also contribute to emissions.
existing carbon and nutrient balances. Although peatlands represent just 3% of the world’s
land area, 84 they store vast amounts of carbon, and
disrupting them releases large volumes of methane,
the most potent greenhouse gas.85

Commentary:
This indicator represents biomass that does not
meet the minimum criterion of carbon neutrality.
This non-carbon-neutral portion is not linked to a
specific source or process but rather represents
systemic inefficiencies in biomass extraction. This
indicator captures the portion of biomass harvested
at a rate that cannot be sustainably regenerated or
taken from a place that disrupts natural ecological
balances (input) or that is not returned to the
environment ‘in place’ and ‘at rate’ (output). The
presence of hazardous substances must also be
accounted for on both the input and output side. This
could include chemicals used to harvest or process
biomass, for example, as well as the discharge of
contaminated biomass into the environment.

Excessive extraction rates and unsustainable

practices make biomass a non-renewable, and
thus linear, resource. Harvesting biomass at a rate
that exceeds its natural capacity for regeneration
essentially makes it a finite, rather than renewable,
resource.78 If biomass is harvested faster than it can
regrow or reabsorb the same amount of carbon, it is
no longer carbon neutral because the total carbon
stock declines. The same applies to soil, another
rapidly degrading key renewable resource strongly
linked to biomass extraction.79 For this reason,
understanding the climate impact of biomass use
means understanding the time-explicit nature of
carbon flows: the rate at which carbon is sequestered,
how long it’s stored, and how quickly it’s released
back into the atmosphere.80, 81, 82 Non-Carbon-Neutral
Biomass is that which results in emissions from land
use and land-cover change through activities that

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 38

Although the current share of Non-Carbon-Neutral nutrient cycles. For example, excessive nitrogen
Biomass use is small, it needs to be reduced to and phosphorus can be introduced into agricultural
zero. At just 2.2%, the share of Non-Carbon-Neutral systems, and nutrients from the soil can be depleted
Biomass accounts for a small portion of total material through erosion and runoff. The overuse of non-
consumption. However, Non-Carbon-Neutral Biomass renewable water resources—where water is taken
represents approximately one-tenth of total biomass faster than it can be replenished—is also a significant
use, a share that is still crucial to minimise. In fact, this concern linked to biomass harvesting. Five of nine
figure may also be higher than estimated, as various planetary boundaries have a direct link to the
studies have demonstrated that different accounting bioeconomy, 89 with biomass extraction linked to the
methods can significantly affect the share of biomass overexploitation of forest resources, land use change,
considered carbon neutral. 86, 87 For example, the Kyoto biodiversity loss, and increased competition for land
Protocol’s guidelines for national accounting—used from fuel, feed and food.
by many countries—have been criticised for allowing
Non-Carbon-Neutral Biomass shares the same sub-
countries to adjust forest management definitions
indicators as Carbon-Neutral Biomass: global biomass
to their advantage, leading to underreported
extraction, biomass types and activities, afforestation
emissions. 88 As discussed in the Carbon-Neutral
and land protection rates, ecological overshoot, level
Biomass section on page 30, carbon neutrality is just
of water stress, average recycling/reclamation of
one of many concerns linked to biomass extraction.
organic substances rates, and proportion of safely
Biomass production can also lead to additional
treated domestic wastewater flows.
environmental risks, including disruptions to natural

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 39

2.2.2 Virgin, Non-Renewable
Materials
This indicator measures materials that potentially
can be cycled but are not. These are heavy mining
28.6%
and industrial wastes, products that are short-lived of materials flowing out of the
(such as paper, packaging, chemicals and some economy are…
consumer products, including fossil fuels used
for material purposes) and longer-lived products Waste disposed of without recovery
reaching their end-of-life (such as discarded within the accounting year. This includes
appliances, vehicles, or construction materials). waste from both short- and long-lived
Products and materials captured by this indicator applications in Accumulated Stocks.
will become waste within the year measured. This
indicator does not capture fossil fuels used for
energy nor biological materials such as food, feed
and biofuels, but does represent a small fraction of
unsustainably managed renewable resources, such
as discarded timber from Accumulated Stocks or (Input) Virgin, Non-
wood used for short-lived packaging applications.
Renewable Materials
broken down by material
group

18.1%
of materials flowing into the
economy are…
Other virgin, mostly Non-Renewable
Materials, including non-metallic
minerals, metals, fossil fuels used for
material purposes, and very small
amounts of technical biomass destined
for disposal. Materials in this flow are
finite resources extracted from the
environment in the current as well as
previous accounting years, and are
disposed of without recovery in the
current accounting year.*

* To capture the time lag in stock dynamics in a snapshot of a single

year, our framework considers Gross Additions to Stock (on the
input side) to be equal to Net Additions to Stock plus demolished and
discarded materials. In this context, Demolition and Discard refers
to materials extracted from the environment and added to stocks in
previous years that become waste in the current year. This approach
is more useful for circularity measurement than just reporting Gross
Additions to Stock on the input side, as it allows us to better understand
this portion of inflows from a circularity perspective.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 40

 This indicator primarily reflects heavy, hard-to-
recycle waste, underscoring the importance of
Desired outcome: circular strategies that minimise waste from the
outset. HWhile we don’t have a granular breakdown
Minimise all non-renewable material of the materials and products captured by this
flows and transform how materials are indicator, we can see that a majority on the input
managed throughout their lifecycle side is represented by construction minerals (53%),
by: 1) Prioritising circular strategies that with metal ores (33%), industrial minerals (5%), fossil
design out waste and reducing waste fuels (6%) 90 and biomass (3%) contributing smaller
from extraction as much as possible, 2) shares. While a portion of the 86% represented by
Recovering the highest value materials construction minerals and metal ores could be waste
from products at their end-of-life, 3) from construction and demolition—a very heavy
Eliminating the need for and providing waste stream by weight—the bulk of it likely comprises
alternatives to fossil-based feedstocks, waste from used and unused extraction from mining
and 4) Improving collection and recycling and quarrying, for example, including waste rock,
systems for all recyclable materials. tailings and soils.91 Much of this wouldn’t be suitable
for high-value recycling, and options to repurpose
these materials are limited, often depending on
material composition and economic feasibility.

Commentary:
This indicator reveals significant potential to
bolster Secondary Material use. This indicator can
be interpreted as the antithesis of the Circularity
Metric: it includes everything that could be
contributing to Secondary Material use but isn’t. At
18.1% and 28.6%, the input and output rates of Virgin,
Non-Renewable Materials reveal substantial room for
increasing global circularity. Ideally, the rate of this
indicator would fall as close to zero as possible, with
these materials instead contributing to Secondary
Material use. The absolute scale of Virgin, Non-
Renewable Materials should also drop: this indicator
grew from approximately 17.9 billion tonnes in 2018
to 19.2 billion tonnes in 2021. Reducing this indicator
on the input side will require cutting consumption to
prevent difficult-to-manage wastes in the first place,
alongside circular design strategies that minimise
waste generation and allow for material recovery. On
the output side, the emphasis should be on increasing
high-value applications for waste and improving
waste management infrastructure. For example, when
dealing with construction waste, disassembly and
reuse are preferable to recycling and highly preferable
to backfilling, a low-value application. However, a
large portion of materials captured by this indicator
are heavy, lower-value waste streams—soils, for
example—without higher-value applications.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 41

Waste rock can be crushed and used as aggregate landfills—alongside other damaging waste streams
for various construction projects, while tailings like medical and e-waste—will still have an important
can sometimes be used to produce brick and tile. role to play in boosting circularity and improving
However, many mining byproducts can contain heavy other environmental outcomes. Landfilling remains
metals or hazardous substances that make them a persistent social and environmental challenge,
difficult to cycle without extensive treatment, which with uncontrolled disposal—representing 57% of
is costly and poses additional environmental risks. global waste treatment (see Figure six)—causing
This underscores the importance of reducing material uncontained negative impacts, such as pollution from
demand and improving processes to reduce the leachate and harmful gases, health hazards and land
generation of these hard-to-manage wastes in the degradation. These landfills also incur financial costs
first place. that often impact local communities. While controlled
landfills are better than uncontrolled dumpsites, they
While heavy waste streams do make up the
are still not ideal: they cause environmental, social
majority of Virgin, Non-Renewable Materials,
and health impacts and potentially lock away valuable
this should not overshadow the importance of
resources, making them unavailable for cycling.93
better managing smaller waste streams, such as
A shift towards higher-value waste management will
municipal solid waste. It’s estimated that the world
be crucial in reducing this indicator’s share, which
generates more than 2 billion tonnes of municipal
can be driven by suitable infrastructure and
solid waste yearly—a figure set to increase by 70% by
legislation, including landfill diversion targets, taxes
2050.92 In many parts of the world, the informal sector
and bans—all of which have had success at reducing
plays a vital role in municipal waste management,
landfilling rates in the EU.94 However, their success
though this often means that these activities aren’t
hinges on the availability of fit-for-purpose waste
properly captured by official statistics nor recognised
processing infrastructure and technology for plastics,
and supported by waste management policy.
textiles and organic waste, for example.
Better managing this waste and diverting it from

Sanitary
landfill Other
Incineration
2% 3%
5% Controlled
landfill
6%
Circle Economy - CGR® 2025

32%
Controlled
disposal
Unspecified
landfill

Uncontrolled Recycled
disposal
27%

Recycled

18%
2%
5%

Figure six provides a breakdown Uncollected Unaccounted

of global waste treatment.
Open dump

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 42

Being tied to the Circularity Metric, this indicator
shares its sub-indicators: total material extraction,
total waste generation, waste as a share of
Processed Outputs, the global waste collection rate,
the global recycling rate, and the controlled disposal
rate. As material extraction decreases and global
waste collection and recycling rise, the share of Virgin,
Non-Renewable Materials will fall; tracking these
indicators thus gives insight into the factors
underpinning current rates and scales of
non-renewable inputs.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 43

2.2.3 Fossil Fuels (Input) Fossil Fuels
This indicator represents fossil-based energy broken down by material
carriers—such as those derived from petroleum, oil
shale and tar sands, coal, and natural gas—burnt
group
for energy. These flows are inherently non-circular:
as they are combusted, they release greenhouse
gas emissions into the atmosphere. Once released,
these emissions are almost impossible to recapture
or reuse at the speed, scope and scale necessary to
limit warming to 1.5-degrees.95

13.3%
of materials flowing into the
economy are…
Fossil Fuels used for energy purposes.

21.6%
of materials flowing out of the
economy are…

Emissions and waste from Fossil Fuels

used for energy purposes.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 44

 capacity and meet additional energy needs. At the
same time, the circular economy itself will require
Desired outcome: significant energy inputs, from reverse logistics to
recycling and material recovery technologies. This
Initiate a managed transition away underscores the importance of minimising energy
from fossil fuel use for energy by: 1) demand and bolstering systemic efficiency while
Prioritising improvements in systemic ensuring that energy is generated through clean,
efficiency and 2) Transitioning to an renewable sources.
energy system that’s electrified where
possible and based on renewables.

Commentary:
As a key contributor to climate change and other
environmental impacts, fossil fuels are one of the
most impactful material groups (see Figure seven).
This mirrors global economic growth, with the two
having a tight historical relationship. Fossil fuels are
also the most traded natural resource, accounting for
around half of traded materials globally in 2020.96
As fossil fuels remain the dominant energy source
today, the scale of fossil fuel use poses a risk to
planetary health.97 Their applications are vast: coal is
used for power generation and processing materials
such as metals and chemicals, oil primarily powers
transport, and natural gas is used for electricity
generation, heat, and as chemical feedstock.
Without systematically restructuring how we
power transport, generate electricity and process
materials—in addition to scaling down these
activities—fossil fuel demand is set to grow.

Rising global energy demand is driving fossil fuel

dependence—but the circular economy transition
can support a sustainable, responsible energy
transition. Global economic growth and energy
demand have historically been closely coupled, with
energy demand increasing by 1 to 2% per year. This
growth can partially be attributed to population
growth, but it is also driven by a rise in average energy
use per capita. For example, global average energy
use per person increased from 1.55–1.65 tonnes of
oil equivalent in 2000 to 1.78–1.80 tonnes in 2021.98
Without making systemic improvements in efficiency,
total energy consumption will continue to grow—
making the shift from fossil fuels to a low-carbon
energy system even more difficult, as new renewable
energy will have to both replace existing fossil fuel

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 45

 Circular economy principles should be at the Decarbonisation is part of a more global circular
foundation of the energy transition to achieve economy: resource-light and low-carbon economies
sustainable resource management. The energy go hand in hand. The current fossil-based energy
transition is a physical transformation and is, system is inherently material-intensive and linear,
therefore, material-intensive. Building a low-carbon requiring a constant flow of carbon-intensive fossil
economy will require a cumulative scale-up of fuels to sustain it. At the same time, developing
material extraction, particularly metals.99 The energy renewable energy systems will also be initially
transition will result in a surge in demand for critical material-intensive, especially metals and critical
raw materials like lithium, cobalt, and rare earth minerals. Many of these materials have high supply
elements—resources concentrated in a few countries, risks and environmental and social costs. Circular
creating new dependencies and supply risks.100 A economy strategies can help scale renewable energy
circular economy approach is crucial to reducing sustainably by reducing its environmental footprint—
reliance on sensitive supply chains, enhancing minimising both the resource extraction required
resource security, and building resilience against price and other environmental impacts of cutting carbon
volatility and supply shortages—supporting a more emissions.102 A circular economy approach that
sustainable and responsible energy transition.101 maximises systemic efficiency in the energy system
and follows circular design principles at the product,
asset and system levels is essential to reduce both
fossil fuel reliance and minimise the raw material
footprint of the energy transition.103

16 20%

12
Coal

Share of fossil fuels in global material extraction

8 10%
Global fossil fuel extraction (Gt)

Petroleum

Natural gas
Circle Economy
CGR® 2025

Oil shale and tar sands

0 0%
70

75

80

85

90

95

10

15

20
0

Year
0

20
20
19

19
19
19

20
20
19
19

20

Figure seven illustrates the evolution of global fossil fuel extraction and its share
of total material extraction between 1970 and 2021.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 46

Realigning financial incentives to support circular through a number of sub-indicators. These indicators’
and low-carbon solutions is important for reducing status—and whether or not they have relevant global
global fossil fuel demand and accelerating the or sub-global targets—are summarised in Table five.
transition to sustainable energy systems. High
Input: On the input side, a number of sub-
subsidies and other financial incentives can reinforce
indicators give insight into the structural factors
global dependence and slow the shift to circular, low-
that currently contribute to the global material
carbon alternatives. Redirection of financial flows will
footprint of fossil fuel-based energy carriers. We
be needed to help the scaling down of fossil fuels. In
know that transitioning to a decarbonised energy
2021, explicit subsidies—such as the direct transfer
system is key to reducing fossil fuel dependence
of government funds, price support, and other
and mitigating climate change. This process has a
forgone tax revenue—represented an estimated
few key components, measured by three indicators.
US$1.4 trillion (about 0.94% of global GDP).104
Ultimately, we need to:
Reorienting financial flows from subsidies towards
decarbonisation—through a systemically efficient 1) Optimise the energy system to help reduce total
energy system based on electrification and powered primary energy supply, which stands at about
by abundant renewables—will be necessary to reduce 579–597 exajoules105 (or 13.8–14.3 billion tonnes of oil
fossil fuel demand, mitigate environmental impacts equivalent), with 82% coming from fossil fuels in 2021.
and optimise long-term resource use. Improving systemic efficiency in energy-intensive
sectors, such as mobility, manufacturing and heating,
Ultimately, the global economy should aim to
will reduce both end-use energy demand and material
reduce the rate of fossil fuel consumption while
use. Within the current system, improving systemic
also minimising the scale of these materials used.
efficiency can be incredibly effective: analysis shows
To understand and measure progress towards
that global energy demand in 2050 could be up to
reducing fossil fuel usage, it’s important to break
40% lower than today if all possible efficiencies are
down the factors influencing these indicators
implemented.106

Sub-Global
Indicator Value in (year) Trend Global Target Status
Targets (Y/N)

579111–597112 464.5 exajoules

Total primary energy exajoules (2021) (2030),
Off-track Yes
supply (exajoules) 570113–581114 553.2 exajoules
exajoules (2018) (2050)115

Share of final energy

18.7% (2021)
consumption from 50–60%117 Off-track Yes
17.3% (2018)
renewable sources (%)116

Share of electricity in
20.1% (2021)
total global energy None n.a. Yes
19.5% (2018)
consumption (%)118, 119

Global anthropogenic 53.0 billion tonnes

greenhouse gas emissions (2021)
28.4 billion
(excluding emissions 52.4 billion tonnes Off-track Yes
tonnes121
from LULUCF) (tonnes (2018)
of CO2e)120

Emissions as a share of 54.8% (2021)

None n.a. No
Processed Outputs (%)122 55.4% (2018)

Table five lists each sub-indicator, elaborating on how these figures have changed over a five-year period and whether we are on
track to meet global targets (if any).

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 47

2) Prioritise electrification from renewable energy to
increase the share of electricity in total final energy
consumption (which was 20.1% in 2021, up from
19.5% in 2018). Because electricity (from renewable
energy technologies) requires less primary energy
supply to generate, electrifying as many activities as
possible—from transportation (think small electric
vehicles) to building heating (through heat pumps,
for example) and steel production (through green
hydrogen)—will be crucial for decreasing fossil fuel
dependence.107 Electrification is increasing, but at
a slower rate than overall energy demand, while
the carbon intensity of electricity generation keeps
growing, not decreasing.108

3) Systemically optimise and scale up decarbonised

electrification across industries to rapidly increase
the share of total final energy consumption from
renewable sources (18.7% in 2021, up from 17.3%
in 2018).109 This is important because, so far, new
renewable energy has overall supplemented not
replaced existing fossil-based energy capacity.

Output: On the output side, indicators capture the

environmental impact of fossil fuel consumption,
giving insight into the consequences of using these
materials. Global anthropogenic greenhouse
gas emissions (excluding emissions from LULUCF)
totalled 53 billion tonnes of CO2e in 2021, with fossil
fuel combustion as the primary driver: 72% of this
stems from energy use. This underscores the urgent
need to transition away from fossil fuels to curb
climate change. Measuring emissions as a share
of Processed Outputs—the materials that leave an
economy as either emissions or physical waste—
gives insight into fossil fuel dependence, with a high
share indicating that an economy depends heavily
on emissions-intensive activities. Of the total output
produced by the global economy, over half (54.8%)110
is emissions. Unlike solid waste, which can often
be recovered and recycled, capturing emissions for
reuse is not yet feasible at scale. This limits the pool
of waste available for circular recovery, reducing
opportunities for reuse and recycling. This indicator
varies by region: industrialised regions like North
America (65%), Europe (61%) and Asia & Oceania (53%)
have higher shares, while Latin America (32%) and
Africa (21%) have significantly lower shares.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 48

 2.3.1 Net Additions to Stock
2.3 Stock build-up Net Additions to Stock measures the rate of
This category includes a single indicator that
physical growth in an economy’s material
measures the share of virgin material flows
accumulation. This indicator represents the
being added to global stocks—such as buildings,
difference between the virgin materials* added
infrastructure, machinery, and vehicles—in net
to the accumulated physical stock and those
terms. Stock build-up refers to the input and
removed over a given period of time, usually
accumulation of materials within an economy over
upwards of one year. Unlike material flows—which
time—crucial for understanding the long-term
track how materials move through the economy—
dynamics of material use and its implications for
stocks represent materials that accumulate in the
sustainability and resource management. These
economy. As economies develop, material flows
additions to stocks are not inherently good or bad.
contribute to material stocks—a relationship that
They can be necessary to meet societal needs like
shapes future resource demand for maintenance
housing and transportation. However, they are also
and replacement and influences future waste
significant drivers of material use, contributing
generation and management. Both flows and
to the high level of resource consumption that
stocks should be examined to understand how
limits circularity. While materials captured by this
materials are extracted, processed, accumulated
indicator may have circular ‘potential’, considering
and ultimately either lost or cycled.
the time element is also important here. These
materials are locked into long-lived assets and
unavailable as secondary material inputs for many
years or even decades, and this delay creates a

38.0%
temporal gap or ‘lag’ in circularity. For this reason,
strategies that optimise stock build-up, extend the
lifetimes of existing assets, and enhance future
material recovery are crucial for improving circular of materials flowing into the
flows over time.
economy are…
While this indicator captures net stock additions—
Net additions of virgin materials—largely
the difference between inflows and outflows—
non-metallic minerals and metals, but
this dynamic is also influenced by reuse,
also small amounts of fossil fuels used
remanufacturing, or repurposing taking place
for material purposes and technical
‘within’ stocks. Many products are recirculated
biomass—accumulated in stocks.
but not recycled: they aren’t classified as Secondary
Materials and captured by the Circularity Metric.
Examples include second-hand electronics and
furniture reused on a smaller scale or asphalt
or vehicles on a larger scale. While this indicator
does not capture the scale at which reuse and Net Additions to Stock
other R-strategies take place, we can broadly
assume that these strategies will lessen demand for
broken down by material
new stock build-up,123 thus optimising Net Additions group
to Stock.

* While a large portion of secondary materials is used in long-lived

applications and contributes to Gross Additions to Stocks, the net
accumulation shown by the Net Additions to Stock indicator does
not include secondary materials. In a static EW-MFA accounting
framework, the amount of secondary materials entering (in Gross
Additions to Stock) and recyclable waste leaving (in the Demolition
and Discard flow) from Accumulated Stocks will always be the same.
In this framework, all secondary materials and recyclable waste—
whether used in long-lived or short-lived applications—are recorded
by the inflows and outflows of Secondary Materials.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 49

 The combination of rapid urbanisation and
economic growth is driving the increasing
Desired outcome: accumulation of stock worldwide.125 The amount
of built-up land is a key driver of per capita material
Optimise material accumulation in demand, as expanding infrastructure and urban areas
stocks by: 1) Maximising the use and require substantial resource inputs.126 Urbanisation
adaptation of existing physical assets, is accelerating, with the share of people living in
such as buildings, infrastructure, cities growing from 47% in 2000 to 56% in 2021.127
and machinery, instead of building/ Projections suggest this could reach 68% by 2050,128
producing new, 2) Increasing the share adding 2.5 billion more people to urban areas.
of sustainably-managed renewable Significant stock additions in cities will be necessary to
materials in stock composition, and 3) accommodate this growth and to provide decent living
Prioritising circular design principles— conditions for the one-third of urban residents who
such as design for durability, repairability, currently live in slums and informal settlements, often
disassembly and recyclability—in new without access to basic services. Going forward, it will
stock additions. be crucial to balance the provision of essential services
with optimised material use and the integration of
circular principles.

Commentary:
Stock build-up plays a crucial role in shaping global
material flows, waste generation, and emissions,
acting as both a driver of and a constraint on
circularity. Net Additions to Stock represent a
significant portion of global material use, with
approximately 38% of materials entering the economy
remaining in use for an extended period. However,
this indicator doesn’t capture the materials required to
operate Accumulated Stocks. When those are included,
this figure increases to more than 70%, highlighting
just how many materials are used to construct,
maintain and operate them. The rate of stock
growth—recorded by Net Additions to Stock—has
grown spectacularly, causing Accumulated Stocks to
increase 23-fold over the 20th century and to roughly
double every two decades.124 The scale and pace of
this build-up have profound implications for resource
efficiency, emissions, and waste management. While
growing material stocks contribute to economic
development and improved living standards, they
may also increase long-term resource dependency
and pose challenges for future material circularity.
This is because poorly designed stock—an energy-
inefficient building that requires natural gas to heat,
for example—increases the long-term material
requirement related to it. On the other hand, long-
lived assets designed with circular principles—a
modular, timber-based, energy-efficient building
with solar panels and a heat pump, for example—can
reduce long-term material dependency.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 50

Embedding circular economy principles into urban 3 billion tonnes, for example.132 Projections indicate
planning and development will be key to reducing continued stock expansion: for example, residential
global resource use and achieving a more circular building stock is projected to grow by 50% by 2050,
economy. As urban areas grow, so too does stock while the global service-related building stock is
build-up, thus locking in materials for decades, projected to increase by 150%.133
shaping material demand patterns and slowing the
While stock build-up has become a key driver
rate at which these resources can re-enter the system
of global resource use, a single global indicator
through reuse or recycling. Without strategies to
overlooks significant differences between regions
optimise urban planning and stock build-up—such as
and countries. Upper-middle and especially high-
localised operations, material-efficient construction,
income countries have historically built up their
adaptive reuse, and designing for longevity—cities
stock,134 while lower-income countries are still
risk becoming long-term hotspots of growing material
developing stock to meet their residents’ societal
demand, exacerbating resource depletion and
needs. Total floor space is expected to grow by 97
environmental pressures. By 2050, urban material
billion square metres between 2022 and 2030, with
consumption is projected to grow by 150%, from 40
the bulk of this notable increase likely to be driven
billion tonnes in 2010 to 90 billion tonnes.129 However,
by lower- and middle-income countries.135 This
designing compact, resource-efficient cities based on
underscores the need for sustainable practices in
circular economy principles could cut greenhouse gas
construction and resource management to mitigate
emissions by 36–56% while also lowering demand for
the environmental impacts associated with this
metals, land, energy and water.130 At the same time,
growth: Lower-income countries should develop stock
actively ‘mining’ materials from Accumulated Stocks—
in line with circular principles that maximise resource
instead of the natural environment—provides another
efficiency—such as prioritising secondary and low-
key opportunity to boost circularity by increasing the
carbon materials and designing for durability, reuse
pool of secondary materials available.
and disassembly at end-of-life—and sustainably
The sheer scale of non-metallic mineral use—driven optimise and manage stock expansion.136 At the
by stock build-up—has fuelled the unprecedented same time, the current weight of per capita stocks is
accumulation of human-made materials. While all higher in industrialised countries than in developing
material groups are linked to stock build-up, non- countries:137 residents of high-income nations
metallic minerals make up the largest portion. This consume significantly more materials than those in
is in part due to their substantial weight: the sand low-income nations, regardless of urbanisation levels.
and limestone used to produce cement and gravel For this reason, higher-income, stock-rich countries
used to build roads and fill construction sites, for should aim to minimise new stock growth, prioritise
example. Non-metallic mineral extraction has grown renovation and adaptation over building new,
exponentially in past decades, from 8.5 billion tonnes maximise the intensity of building use, and maximise
in 1970 to 47.9 billion tonnes in 2021 (see Figure one). material efficiency for long-lasting manufactured
This is a key reason why, in 2020, humanity reached a goods, for example. Durable, repairable, and modular
new milestone when the mass of human-made things design approaches can significantly extend the
surpassed that of all living things on Earth—plants, usability of these assets.
animals and humans.131 The weight of Accumulated
Stocks on Earth has also significantly increased over
the past decades, estimated at over 1 trillion tonnes
in 2016. The majority of these materials are found in
roads (313 billion tonnes), residential buildings (290
billion tonnes), civil engineering (243 billion tonnes)
and non-residential buildings (234 billion tonnes).
Machinery and other shorter-lived products contribute
far less, with the weight of motor vehicles totalling just

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 51

Setting a specific goal for the share of Net Additionally, optimising the average lifetimes of
Additions to Stock is complicated, as this will vary asset categories—such as residential buildings,
significantly by context. For example, a country’s vehicles, and appliances (see Figure eight)—provides
target for a given year would depend on historic stock insight into their durability and replacement cycles.
build-up, how current Accumulated Stock is being This directly influences the rate at which new materials
managed, and how needs for new stock additions are needed. By slowing material turnover, we can
are being met. It’s more important that the materials minimise resource demand in the long term.
captured by this indicator are sustainably optimised so
that the full potential for circularity can be met. Stock
build-up is measured using input-side sub-indicators,
as inputs inherently account for both outputs and net
accumulation. However, stock dynamics introduce
a significant time lag because materials entering
the system today do not immediately translate into
outputs. Many of these materials become part of
long-lived assets—such as buildings, infrastructure,
and vehicles—remaining in use for years or decades.
Over time, these materials gradually exit the economy,
shaping output-side indicators. This means that
current outputs are largely influenced by past inflows
rather than present material use. Resources that leave
the system as outputs are classified under different
indicators: either waste destined for recycling or waste
disposed of without recovery (see Figure three).

These indicators’ status—and whether or not they

have relevant global or sub-global targets—is
summarised in Table six.

Input: Input-side sub-indicators for Net Additions to

Stock give insight into the flows of materials included
in societies’ physical stocks, as well as their longevity.
The global growth rate in built-up areas—an
increase of 33% between 2000 and 2022—reveals
the rising material demand for new buildings,
infrastructure, and transport systems.138 This is
particularly noticeable in rapidly developing regions
where built-up areas in Asia or Africa have grown
40% over the past two decades, compared to 20% for
Europe and North America. Measuring the share of
renewable biomass out of Net Additions to Stock
(0.4%) helps track progress towards a bioeconomy.
Most of this progress, at least from a mass
perspective, will relate to changes in the composition
of stocks as opposed to other (still important)
applications such as biorefinery products. However,
to achieve this, we need to respect the principles
of a circular bioeconomy, as explored on page 34:
minimising carbon emissions and cycling nutrients
back into the ecosystem at the right place and rate.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 52

Global stock optimisation
Lifetime of selected assets compared to the
global average

Ve h i c l e s Re s i d e n t i a l Appliances
buildings

21 87 10.5

17 83 9.2

17 75 9.1

17 72 9.0

16 54 8.3

15 50 7.2

14 44 7.0

Legend

Global average North America OECD mixed

Includes: Australia, Switzerland,

Europe Latin America
Chile, Island, Israel, South Korea,
Norway, Mexico, New Zealand
Asia and Oceania Africa
and Turkey

This visual is built using data from different sources and with Figure eight illustrates the lifetimes of three asset
different reference years ranging between 2007 and 2015. categories across world regions.

Unit: years

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 53

 Sub-Global
Indicator Value in (year) Trend Global Target Status
Targets (Y/N)

Growth rate in global + 33%

None n.a. No
built-up area (%)139 (2000–2020)

Renewable biomass as a
0.4% (2021)
share of Net Additions to None n.a. No
0.6% (2018)
Stock140

Average lifetime of
54 years
residential buildings n.a. None n.a. No
(various years)*
(years)141

Average lifetime of 17 years

n.a. None n.a. No
vehicles (years)142 (various years)*

Average lifetime of 9 years

appliances (years)143 n.a. None n.a. No
(various years)*

Table six lists each sub-indicator, elaborating on how these figures have changed over a five-year period and whether we are on
track to meet global targets (if any).
* Based on the latest available data from each country or group of countries.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 54

A circularity indicator set fit for the • Biomass consumption is reduced by 75% by 2050
(compared to 2020 levels),148 compatible with a cap
future
on bio-based material consumption at 2 tonnes per
Now that you know the breakdown of the various capita.149
parts of the Circularity Indicator Set, you may
wonder: what is a ‘better’ allocation of material Crucially, the absolute volume of material throughput
inputs? The Circularity Metric is too low, and our must decrease. As shown in Table seven below,
use of Non-Carbon-Neutral Biomass, Virgin, Non- applying these targets results in a significant
Renewable Materials, and Fossil Fuels is too high, but reduction in the scales of each indicator. This
estimating appropriate rates for some indicators— highlights the importance of considering overall
such as Carbon-Neutral Biomass and Net Additions scales, at the very least, in conjunction with—if
to Stock—is complex. Table seven demonstrates not instead of—rates. In this scenario, for example,
the results of a thought experiment using key the rate of Carbon-Neutral Biomass—a potentially
global targets to reimagine the distribution of the ‘circular’ indicator—falls simply because less
Circularity Indicator Set in a more sustainable and materials are being used overall.
circular world. It’s assumed that:

• The Circularity Metric increases to 17% by 2032;144

• Virgin material use is capped at the estimated

sustainable level of 8 tonnes per capita145 —close to
the level of consumption in 1970—for a projected
population for 2032;146

• Emissions are reduced by 25 billion tonnes of CO2e

by 2030, to stay below 1.5-degrees of warming;147

2021 2032

Scale (billion Scale (billion

Rate (%) Rate (%)
tonnes) tonnes)

Secondary Materials/Circularity Metric

6.9% 7.3 17.0% 14.3
(Input Technical Cycling)

Carbon-Neutral Biomass (Input Ecological

21.5% 22.8 20.4% 17.1
Cycling Potential)

Non-Carbon-Neutral Biomass (Input Non-

2.2% 2.3 0.0% 0.0
Renewable Biomass)

Other Virgin, Non-Renewable Materials

(Input Non-Renewable Flows) 18.0% 19.2 14.4% 12.1

Fossil Fuels used for energy purposes

13.3% 14.1 6.9% 5.8
(Input Non-Circular Flows)

Net Additions to Stock 38.0% 40.3 41.2% 34.6

Total 100% 106.1 100% 83.9

Table seven presents the results of a thought experiment, illustrating how achieving various global sustainability targets could
impact the distribution of the Circularity Indicator Set and, more crucially, the scale of material throughput.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 55

Circular economy metrics for
businesses
While governments define regulatory frameworks
within their jurisdictions, businesses—by operating
global value chains—directly shape the actual
performance of global resource flows. This is why a
growing number of businesses are measuring and
reporting on the circular economy performance of
their own operations and value chains. A growing
number of measurement frameworks and reporting
standards150 are making it easier for businesses
to report on such matters using language and
indicators that are well-understood and defined.
While the indicators explored throughout this
chapter are macro-level and perhaps better
suited to national or regional governments, the
importance of businesses in driving the circular
transition should also be recognised.

Measuring the circularity of global resource

flows requires a very different set of indicators
than measuring the circular economy performance
of individual actors—like businesses—that are
engaged with those resource flows. Businesses
can set out to measure the performance of
individual products, businesses, value chains,
or entire sectors, each time setting different
system boundaries for their assessments.
This makes it very important for organisations
to clearly communicate which scope they have
applied to their analysis when reporting on
circular economy performance, much like the
use of Scope 1, 2 or 3 in communications on
greenhouse gas emissions. More guidance on
proper scope setting in the field of circular
economy performance measurement can be
found in our white paper on this topic: Circular
Economy Boundary Framework: Setting circularity
scopes for impact and material measurements.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 56

 3 The way forward
Calls to action for stakeholders
in government and business

Based on years of research, we know the potential

of the circular economy to meet the needs of
people around the globe while bringing material
use back within the safe limits of our planet—
helping to decouple wellbeing from resource
consumption and environmental impacts. We
also now know that we’re not yet leveraging this
potential: much remains to be harnessed. The
previous chapter of this report outlined the ‘what’,
highlighting trends of concern, pinpointing where
we’re not on track and quantifying baselines
from which to measure and monitor progress. It
showed how various headline indicators relate to
and interact with each other, acting as levers to
boost the Circularity Metric. By minimising ‘linear’
inputs, optimising stock build-up, and ensuring the
circularity of biomass, we could be well on our way
to a more circular world. Now that we know what
needs to be done, this chapter synthesises our
key findings into five crucial and interconnected
goals to rally behind and explores the ‘how’. It
highlights the actions key stakeholders across
government and industry should take to create the
right environment for a global circular economy to
flourish and implement real circular solutions on
the ground.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 57

 The rate of secondary material Why is this critical? Growing global resource
use is steadily decreasing, and the use is the main driver of the triple planetary
vast majority of materials entering crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and
the economy are virgin. We need pollution.151 At the same time, concerns related
to reduce global resource demand to resource depletion and long-term resilience
and scale down material throughput enable governments and businesses to explore
with sufficiency strategies that ways to make economies less material intensive.
avoid demand for materials,
We should boost secondary material use
energy, land and water while
and reduce extraction in tandem, and help
providing for people’s wellbeing
ensure governments and businesses embrace
within planetary boundaries.
principles of resource efficiency and sufficiency.
Although the scale of secondary material use is This means promoting circular design
slowly increasing, the rate is falling, outpaced principles, optimising the lifetime of existing
by overall growth in virgin material use. In 2021, products and components, and ensuring
we reached a historical milestone, reaching 100 recycled material inputs become the norm for
billion tonnes of material extraction in one year. businesses in many industries and regions.
This is more than a three-times increase from
1970, with average growth of 2.3% per year.

We’re consuming more and more Why is this critical? Biomass extraction drives
biomass at the expense of the a range of environmental impacts worldwide: it
safety and stability of the natural represents nearly one-fifth of global emissions
world, driving climate change and and accounts for over 90% of land-related
biodiversity collapse. Biomass biodiversity loss.152 All nations and industries
extraction and use aren’t sustainable inherently depend on biomass and the
by default: they need to meet strict ecosystem services it sustains—from clean air
sustainability criteria to safeguard and water to soil fertility and climate regulation.
ecosystems. A functioning natural ecosystem is fundamental
to economic stability and human well-being.
Ecological cycling, a cornerstone of the circular
economy, is a major blindspot that requires We should make biomass use (and ultimately,
more critical attention. Although it’s widely land use management) truly sustainable by
accepted that renewable resources play a ensuring extraction allows for sustainable
starring role in a circular economy, it’s crucial regeneration, prevents waste and pollution,
not to assume that using more renewable and supports biodiversity. Nutrients need to be
resources is sustainable by default. Biomass cycled back into the ecosystem in the right place
extraction has more than doubled in the last 50 and at the right rate, and carbon emissions
years, and poor practices like heavy fertiliser should be minimised.
use, inefficient land allocation and use, and food
waste generation are commonplace.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 58

 Rapid stock build-up is a key Why is this critical? Stock build-up is a key
driver of growing resource use. determinant of past, present and future
Optimising material stock build-up material flows. To reduce waste, emissions,
will be key to achieving long-term and overconsumption, preventing the excess
resource efficiency and sufficiency accumulation of materials in stock is essential.
while reducing excessive material What’s more, materials available for stock build-
accumulation. up are finite: as increasingly-rare metal inputs
become locked up in long-lived assets, for
Almost two-fifths of materials consumed
example, nations and industries will not be
by the global economy each year feed into
able to maintain current infrastructure levels
stock build-up—net materials accumulated in
without adopting circular approaches to
new buildings, infrastructure and machinery
resource management.
that stay in use for many years. This rate has
grown spectacularly, with stocks increasing We should flatten the spike in global material
23-fold over the 20th century. Stock build-up use by minimising unnecessary stock growth
is not inherently ‘bad’; on the contrary, many in high-income economies—prioritising
countries need to invest to ensure that the local renovation and adaptation over building
populations have access to basic services, and new, for example. At the same time, we
we need to build up infrastructure globally need to sustainably optimise and manage
to support renewable energy generation, stock expansion through compact, urban
distribution and storage capacity. However, development and circular design principles
stocks should be built up and managed with in lower-income countries. Increasing
care to ensure optimal resource use. high-value resource recovery from construction
and demolition waste and recovering critical
metals from infrastructure and equipment
will also be crucial.

To transition away from fossil fuel global targets. To progress towards an

consumption, we must accelerate electrified world powered by renewables,
electrification and scale up the we need to undertake the physical
deployment of well-designed, transformation needed to decarbonise
renewable energy systems to economies, following circular principles.
sustainably meet growing energy
Why is this critical? Fossil fuel use is the
needs.
largest contributor of global greenhouse gas
From a raw materials perspective, the share emissions, responsible for 78%.
of fossil fuels relative to total material
We should reduce the rate and scale of fossil
extraction has shrunk over the past fifty
fuel consumption—transitioning existing
years—but absolute fossil fuel use is still
fossil-based energy capacity to renewable
increasing. While there’s been some progress
technologies designed for longevity, reuse
in terms of electrification and renewable
and recycling, reducing the need for ongoing
energy deployment, this is not occurring
material use in the long-term.
at the speed and scope necessary to reach

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 59

 The overall scale of virgin, non- Why is this critical? A large portion of the
renewable materials destined waste produced by the global economy isn’t
for landfill is growing. We need to properly handled, and materials mismanaged
minimise wasteful processes across along the supply chain represent a huge lost
key resource-intensive supply opportunity for value recovery. At the same
chains by prioritising circular design, time, landfilling and uncontrolled disposal
sufficiency and efficient resource remain a pervasive social and environmental
use, and better manage unavoidable challenge linked to a range of impacts, from
waste. pollution to health hazards to land degradation.

More than one-fifth of global material use We should reduce this indicator to as close to
is represented by materials that could be 0% as possible. Circular design principles can
cycled but currently are not. This indicator prevent the generation of difficult-to-manage
has grown by more than one billion tonnes wastes. Infrastructure should be developed to
between 2018 and 2021. Consumption and increase high-value applications for waste, and
extraction are growing rapidly, greatly waste management infrastructure should be
outpacing improvements in resource recovery improved and backed by regulation.
technologies and waste management capacity.
While collection rates are improving, value
recovery remains far too low. Secondary raw
materials still face price competition from
cheaper virgin materials, so advancements
in recycling technologies and environmental
regulations are needed to shift the market.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 60

 What governments
can do
Take the lead in enabling circular resource and recyclability from the outset.154 These measures
use: system-level transformation requires both drive sustainability and help build more
governments to set a clear vision and drive the resilient economies by reducing dependence on
much-needed economic upgrade. This means finite resources, mitigating supply chain risks, and
driving a strategic approach to resource policy, fostering long-term economic stability.
ensuring decisive actions follow intentions. It goes
Actively support and participate in global
without saying: the shift to a circular economy
governance, as no country can tackle resource
cannot happen without the right policy environment
use reduction in a vacuum. In our highly
and government action that phases out wasteful
globalised world, international collaboration is
practices and promotes and supports smarter ways
essential to effectively managing global material
of meeting people’s needs. Political leadership
flows and reducing extraction. Despite increasing
is crucial to set priorities, drive investment, and
recognition of resource overconsumption, there
build public support for change. Governments may
is no global governance framework to help
have a bigger role to play than correcting market
ensure sustainable resource use nor targets to
failures: they should actively shape economies to
work towards. An international body—akin to the
reduce dependence on virgin materials, cut waste
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or
and emissions, and create viable new opportunities
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
for businesses and workers. They rally behind and
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—could help
unify circular initiatives and set the objectives
steer action by providing science-based assessments
necessary to address urgent socioeconomic
and policy guidance. This body
challenges in a rapid, socially just way. In parallel,
would focus on shaping long-term resource
there is room to embed circular economy thinking
management by setting global benchmarks,
and interventions into existing climate policy efforts
tracking material use, and guiding value chain
by building circularity into Nationally Determined
transformation. This aligns with suggestions made in
Contributions, for example.153
the negotiating text of the legally binding agreement
Shape the right economic conditions for on plastics pollution, for example.155
circularity to flourish. Governments have the This would provide countries and companies
potential to reshape economic incentives in line with ambitious, science-based insights to inform
with circular economy principles, ensuring that material use targets alongside climate and
they become the default rather than the exception. biodiversity goals. Immediate efforts towards
Market designs and pricing mechanisms need to this end goal could build upon existing work
be aligned with circular economy goals: rethinking in this area, such as the International Law
fiscal policies and regulating finance so that flows Association’s Guidelines for Sustainable Natural
of capital are redirected to sustainable resource use Resources Management156 and the International
and away from linear, resource-depleting, polluting Resource Panel’s Mineral Resource Governance
activities. A smart policy mix can level the playing in the 21st century.157
field and encourage businesses to transform their
operations. Governments can also strengthen
extended producer responsibility (EPR) and eco-
design regulations to not only promote smarter
waste management but drive circular design
by encouraging circularity upstream, ensuring
products are designed for durability, repairability

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 61

Establish an International Materials Agency to impacts, an International Materials Agency could
guide governments in measuring and monitoring provide relevant insights at the national level. In
sustainable resource use and circular economy this sense, it could provide better: (1) Orientation
progress. Robust data and transparency are through material consumption targets and related
essential for both monitoring the transition and science-based guidance, including a target akin to
creating accountability. Improved transparency, a ‘net zero for materials’, (2) Measurement ​​through
data collection, and reporting mechanisms aligned data, indicators and metrics that capture the
with international standards are needed to drive wellbeing performance and material efficiency of
smarter decision-making. These systems help key provisioning systems such as housing, mobility,
identify trends, evaluate the impact of policies, and food, and energy, and (3) Economic incentives to
refine strategies over time. They are also crucial realign financial flows with resource-light, low-
to ensure that policy action is driving real change carbon and nature-positive solutions. It could also
rather than merely shifting impacts elsewhere. ensure the best-practice transfer of knowledge and
Crucially, however, this agency’s role would be facilitate collaboration among practitioners across
distinct from target-setting—it would focus policy and business.
solely on data provision. By providing access to
consolidated material flows and presenting their

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 62

 What businesses
can do
Set clear, measurable goals towards a circular Collaborate and work together within value
transition that is both environmentally chains to optimise resource use and drive
responsible and financially sustainable. innovation. Businesses should collaborate across
Businesses need to adopt circular metric the full value chain to optimise material use and
frameworks such as the Global Circularity overcome economic split incentives. By joining
Protocol and Circular Transition Indicators to set forces with suppliers, manufacturers, and other
clear, measurable goals for the transition. This partners, companies can drive innovation and
will provide clarity to both internal and external invest in the changes needed to make circular
stakeholders about their commitment to reducing solutions viable. Collaboration helps to build
material use, promoting the reuse of products, economies of scale, reduce costs, and share
and enhancing transparency—whilst remaining knowledge, ultimately accelerating the adoption
competitive. Through clearly defined resource of circular practices across entire industries. In
targets tied to business strategy and operations, doing so, businesses can also address the risks
businesses can demonstrate tangible progress on inherent in the current linear economy, such as
their circular economy journey while aligning their supply chain disruptions, resource scarcity, and
operations with sustainability goals. increasing regulatory burdens. By working together
to shift to circular solutions, companies can unlock
Invest in the circular economy now to ensure
opportunities to create new markets, optimise
that they remain competitive and future-proof.
materials use, and ensure long-term resilience.
Transitioning to circular models provides new
market opportunities. By investing in renewable
resources, sustainable production technologies,
reverse logistics infrastructure, and circular product
design, businesses can secure long-term success,
enhance their competitive edge, and reduce risks
related to geopolitical matters, resource scarcity
and regulatory changes. Rethinking product
portfolios to align with circular principles—such
as designing for durability, repairability, and
recyclability—will be key to adapting to evolving
market demands. The global economy is now
facing increasing supply chain disruptions,
particularly for the critical raw materials essential
to decarbonisation and digitalisation, as well as
a number of key manufacturing industries. With
escalating demand, businesses that integrate
circular strategies and localise their operations
can shorten supply chains and ultimately reduce
dependence on global markets. Circular business
models can drive value through cost reduction,
resource efficiency, and innovation, and the metrics
used to track these activities—such as circular
inflow (the use of recycled materials), circular
outflow (end-of-life management), and waste/
resource consumption avoided—will be essential to
evaluate and scale their impact.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 63

Appendix A: Glossary

Accumulated Stock measures the total volume of Economy-wide material flow accounts is a
materials added to socioeconomic stocks over time. ‘statistical accounting framework describing the
physical interaction of the economy with the natural
Cascading is a method of retaining the ‘added value’
environment and with the rest of the world economy
of materials for as long as possible through the
in terms of flows of materials.’ [Source]
sequential use of resources for different purposes—
usually (or ideally) through multiple material (re) Greenhouse gases (GHG) refers to a group of
use phases before energy extraction/recovery gases contributing to global warming and climate
operations. [Source] breakdown. The term covers seven greenhouse
gases divided into two categories. Converting them
Consumption refers to the usage or consumption
to carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) through the
of products and services meeting demand. Absolute
application of characterisation factors makes it
consumption refers to the total volume of either
possible to compare them and to determine their
physical or monetary consumption of an economy,
individual and total contributions to Global Warming
domestic or global, as a whole. In this report, when
Potential (see below). [Source]
we talk about consumption, we are referring to
absolute consumption. Gross Additions to Stock measures the total
amount of materials used in long-lived applications
Cycling refers to the process of converting a material
(of over one year) in the accounting year. In the
into a material or product of a higher (upcycling),
context of this analysis, this can include both virgin
same (recycling) or lower (downcycling) embodied
and secondary materials.
value and/or complexity than it originally was.
High-value recycling refers to the extent to
Decoupling refers to a trend that occurs when
which, through the recycling chain, the distinct
the growth rate of an environmental impact (for
characteristics of a material (the polymer, the glass
example, CO2 emissions) is less than that of its
or the paper fibre, for example) are preserved or
economic driving force (for example, gross domestic
recovered so as to maximise their potential to be re-
product) over a given period. Decoupling can be
used in a circular economy. [Source]
either absolute or relative. Absolute decoupling is
defined as when the environmental impact is stable Materials, as referred to in this report, are non-
or decreases when the economic driving force is metallic minerals, metal ores, biomass, and fossil
growing. Relative decoupling is defined as when the fuels, used as inputs to production or manufacturing
growth rate of the environmental impact is positive because of their properties. Materials are a type
but less than the growth rate of the economic driving of natural resource, alongside land and water, for
force. [Source] example.

Domestic Material Consumption is an Material extraction is an environmental indicator

environmental indicator that covers the flows of that measures, in physical weight, the amount of raw
both products and raw materials by accounting for materials extracted from the natural environment for
their mass. It can take an ‘apparent consumption’ use in any economy. It excludes water and air. At the
perspective—the mathematical sum of domestic national level, this indicator is called Domestic Material
production and imports minus exports—without Extraction. [Source]
considering changes in stocks. It can also take a
Material footprint, also referred to as Raw Material
‘direct consumption’ perspective, in that products for
Consumption, is the attribution of global material
import and export do not account for the inputs—be
extraction to the domestic final demand of a
they raw materials or other products—used in their
country—referred to as a consumption-based
production. [Own elaboration based on Source]
approach. The material footprint equals the total
volume of virgin materials embodied within the
supply chain to meet final demand. At the global
level, Raw Material Consumption is equivalent to
material extraction (see above). [Source]

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 64

Material flows represent the amounts of Secondary materials are materials that
materials in physical weight that are available to have been used once and are recovered and
an economy. These material flows comprise the reprocessed for subsequent use. This refers to the
extraction of materials within the economy as amount of the outflow that can be recovered to
well as the physical imports and exports (such as be re-used or refined to re-enter the production
the mass of goods imported or exported). Air and stream. One aim of dematerialisation is to
water are generally excluded. [Source] increase the amount of secondary materials used
in production and consumption to create a more
Net Additions to Stock measures the net
circular economy. [Source]
amount of materials long-lived applications after
accounting for materials removed from existing Sufficiency, as defined by the IPCC, is a set of
Accumulated Stocks through Demolition and policy measures and daily practices that avoid
Discard. This flow only contains virgin materials, demand for energy, materials, land, water, and
as the amount of secondary materials in both other natural resources while delivering human
Gross Additions to Stock and Demolition and wellbeing for all within planetary boundaries.
Discard is assumed to be equal within the same [Source]
accounting year.
Total material consumption is calculated by
Planetary boundaries define the ‘safe operating adding Raw Material Consumption (material
space’ for humanity based on the planet’s key footprint) and secondary material consumption
biophysical processes. Originally developed by (cycled materials).
Rockström et al. (2009), the framework quantifies
nine ‘limits’ for ensuring a stable and resilient
Earth system. Six of nine boundaries have now
been transgressed. [Source]

Resources include, for example, arable land,

freshwater, and materials. They are seen as
parts of the natural world that can be used for
economic activities that produce goods and
services. Material resources are biomass (like
crops for food, energy and bio-based materials, as
well as wood for energy and industrial uses), fossil
fuels (in particular coal, gas and oil for energy),
metals (such as iron, aluminium and copper used
in construction and electronics manufacturing)
and non-metallic minerals (used for construction,
notably sand, gravel and limestone). [Source]

Resource efficiency means creating more

(economic) value with less input of resources (for
example, raw materials, energy, water, air, land,
soil, and ecosystem services) and reducing the
environmental impacts associated with resource
use to break the link between economic growth
and the use of nature. Therefore, resource
efficiency is closely linked to the concept of
(relative/absolute) decoupling. [Source]

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 65

Endnotes

1. Note that the use of ‘we’ and ‘our’ throughout this report 14. International Resource Panel (IRP). (2024). Global resources
often refers to Circle Economy, this report’s author, with outlook 2024: Bend the trend: Pathways to a liveable planet
the exception of the use of the general societal ‘we’. as resource use spikes. United Nations Environment
Programme: Nairobi. Retrieved from: UNEP website
2. International Resource Panel (IRP). (2024). Global
Resources Outlook 2024: Bend the trend: Pathways to a 15. Hickel, J., O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A., & Zoomkawala, H.
liveable planet as resource use spikes. United Nations (2022). National responsibility for ecological breakdown:
Environment Programme: Nairobi. Retrieved from: UNEP a fair-shares assessment of resource use, 1970–2017.
website The Lancet Planetary Health, 6(4), E342–E349. doi:10.1016/
S2542-5196(22)00044-4
3. Our analysis does not consider technical and economic
feasibility. 16. Wang, R., Hertwich, E. G., Fishman, T., Deetman, S.,
Behrens, P., Chen, W., … Zimmerman, J. B. (2023). The
4. IRP. (2024). Global Resources Outlook 2024: Bend the trend.
legacy environmental footprints of manufactured capital.
Pathways to a liveable planet as resource use spikes. UNEP:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(24).
Nairobi. Retrieved from: UNEP website
doi:10.1073/pnas.2218828120
5. Gütschow, J., Busch, D., & Pflüger, M. (2025). The PRIMAP-
17. IRP. (2024). Global resources outlook 2024: Bend the trend.
hist national historical emissions time series (1750-
Pathways to a liveable planet as resource use spikes. UNEP:
2023) v2.6.1 (v2.6.1) [Data set]. Zenodo. doi:10.5281/
Nairobi. Retrieved from: UNEP website
zenodo.15016289
18. International Development Association. (2021). IDA20
6. Energy Institute. (2024). Statistical review of world energy.
special theme: climate change. Retrieved from: World Bank
Retrieved from: Energy Institute website
website
7. UNEP. (n.d.). Indicator 12.c.1. Retrieved from: UNEP
19. IRP. (2024). Global resources outlook 2024: Bend the trend.
website
Pathways to a liveable planet as resource use spikes.
8. Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Lauk, C., Haas, W., UNEP: Nairobi. Retrieved from: UNEP website
Tanikawa, H., Fishman, T., … Haberl, H. (2017). Global
20. Other research suggests that we could provide decent
socioeconomic material stocks rise 23-fold over the
standards of living to a global population of 8.5 billion
20th century and require half of annual resource use.
with just 35% of the resources we use now. Source: Vélez-
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(8),
Henao, J.A. & Pauliuk, S. (2023). Material requirements
1880–1885. doi:10.1073/pnas.1613773114
of decent living standards. Environmental Science &
9. UN. (2018). World urbanisation prospects 2018: Highlights. Technology, 57(38), 14206–14217. doi:10.1021/acs.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population est.3c03957
Division. Retrieved from: UN website
21. Circle Economy, PGGM, KPMG, WBCSD, & EBRD. (2018).
10. UNEP. (2024). Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to Linear risks: How business as usual is a threat to companies
develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic and investors. Retrieved from: Circle Economy website
pollution, including in the marine environment. Retrieved
22. International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
from: UNEP website
(2024). ISO 59020:2024 Circular economy — Measuring
11. International Resource Panel (IRP). (2024). Global resources and assessing circularity performance. Retrieved from:
outlook 2024: Bend the trend: Pathways to a liveable planet ISO website
as resource use spikes. United Nations Environment
23. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
Programme: Nairobi. Retrieved from: UNEP website
(UNECE) & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
12. International Resource Panel (IRP). (2024). Global resources Development (OECD). (2023). Conference of European
outlook 2024: Bend the trend: Pathways to a liveable planet Statisticians guidelines for measuring circular economy:
as resource use spikes. United Nations Environment Part A: Conceptual framework, indicators and measurement
Programme: Nairobi. Retrieved from: UNEP website framework. Geneva: United Nations. Retrieved from:
UNECE website
13. Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Benndsten, J.,
Cornell, S., Donges, J., et al. (2023). Earth beyond six
of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances, 9(37).
doi:10.1126/sciadv.adh2458

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 66

24. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 35. The difference between this figure and the recycling
(UNECE) & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and rate as calculated with the Sankey data (27.7%) is due to
Development (OECD). (2023). Conference of European slightly different totals for waste generation following the
Statisticians guidelines for measuring circular economy: harmonisation and reconciliation of different data sources.
Part A: Conceptual framework, indicators and measurement We report on the actual result from the database for a
framework. Geneva: United Nations. Retrieved from: consistent comparison with 2018 data.
UNECE website
36. Extraction data: International Resource Panel. (2024).
25. Circle Economy analysis. Global material flows database. Retrieved from: IRP
website; Population data: United Nations, Department of
26. Circle Economy analysis.
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2024).
27. Circle Economy analysis. World population prospects: The 2024 revision. Retrieved
from: UN website
28. Due to data limitations, it is assumed that waste destined
for recycling is a good proxy for secondary materials that 37. Or 68 billion tonnes. Target to be achieved by 2030. This is
will be deployed in the economy within the accounting an unofficial target based on planetary boundaries, from:
year, according to Eurostat (page 12). In reality, there are Fanning, A., O’Neill, D., Hickel, J., & Roux, N. (2022). The
time lags and inefficiencies in the waste management social shortfall and ecological overshoot of nations. Nature
system: this means that the amount of waste available Portfolio. doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00799-z
for recycling and the secondary materials flowing into the
38. Circle Economy analysis.
economy in the same year are not necessarily the same.
39. Circle Economy analysis.
29. IRP. (2024). Global resources outlook 2024: Bend the trend.
Pathways to a liveable planet as resource use spikes. UNEP: 40. Circle Economy analysis.
Nairobi. Retrieved from: UNEP website
41. Circle Economy analysis.
30. This analysis attributes ‘material handling and use’ to
42. Circle Economy analysis.
all final uses that serve material purposes: for example,
energy use in freight transport and non-residential 43. Navare, K., Muys, B., Vrancken, K. C., & Van Acker, K.
buildings is classified as serving material purposes (2021a). Circular economy monitoring – how to make it apt
because these activities directly support the movement for biological cycles? Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
and sale of goods. It’s important to note that other 170, 105563. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105563
research takes a narrower scope in linking material use
44. Navare, K., Muys, B., Vrancken, K. C., & Van Acker, K.
and emissions, with the International Resource Panel, for
(2021a). Circular economy monitoring – how to make it apt
example, estimating that 23% of emissions are linked to
for biological cycles? Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
the ‘production of materials’. From source.
170, 105563. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105563
31. IRP. (2011). Decoupling natural resource use and
45. For food and feed, cascading is more difficult due to
environmental impacts from economic growth. Retrieved
spoilage, safety concerns, and the biological nature of
from: IRP website
consumption. For this reason, cascading largely applies to
32. On the national scale, it’s important to note that relevant non-food biomass.
sub-indicators change slightly, as material extraction is
46. IRP. (2024). Global resources outlook 2024: Bend the trend.
no longer equivalent to virgin material use due to trade
Pathways to a liveable planet as resource use spikes. UNEP:
between economies: here, measuring indicators like
Nairobi. Retrieved from: UNEP website
Domestic Extraction, Domestic Material Consumption
and Raw Material Consumption can indicate to what 47. This does not consider timber or wood-based packaging,
extent material extraction and use is surpassing safe for example, which could be considered under Secondary
levels and hindering progress towards a broad range of Materials, Virgin, Non-Renewable Materials or additions to
environmental goals. Refer to the glossary on page 64 for Stock, for example, depending on its fate.
definitions of these indicators. 48. Winkler, K., Fuchs, R., Rounsevell, M., & Herold, M. (2021).
33. This number excludes combustion-related solid and Global land use changes are four times greater than
liquid waste, such as ashes and sludges. previously estimated. Nature Communications, 12(1).
doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22702-2
34. This number excludes combustion-related solid and
liquid waste, such as. ashes and sludges. This share of 49. Our World in Data. (2024). Half of the world’s habitable
waste out of Processed Outputs may therefore be land is used for agriculture. Retrieved from: Our World in
slightly underestimated. Data website

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 67

50. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity 64. Gütschow, J., Busch, D., & Pflüger, M. (2025). The PRIMAP-
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). (2019). Global assessment hist national historical emissions time series (1750-
report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Retrieved 2023) v2.6.1 (v2.6.1) [Data set]. Zenodo. doi:10.5281/
from: IPBES website zenodo.1501628

51. UNEP. (2024). Food waste index report 2024. UNEP. Retrieved 65. Singh, C., Persson, U. M., Croft, S., Kastner, T., & West, C.
from: UNEP website D. (2024). Commodity-driven deforestation, associated
carbon emissions and trade 2001-2022 (2.0) [Data set].
52. Deloitte. (2024). Turning point: Feeding the world
Zenodo. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10633818
sustainably. Retrieved from: Deloitte website
66. United Nations Climate Change. (n.d.). Land use, land-use
53. van Zanten, H. H., Simon, W., van Selm, B., Wacker, J.,
change and forestry (LULUCF). Retrieved from: UNFCCC
Maindl, T. I., Frehner, A., … Herrero, M. (2023). Circularity in
website
Europe strengthens the sustainability of the Global Food
System. Nature Food, 4(4), 320–330. doi:10.1038/s43016- 67. Sustainable Development Goal 6.3.1: Proportion of safely
023-00734-9 treated domestic wastewater flows by country can be
used as a proxy for ‘pollutant discharges from production
54. EAT. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet
activities to water bodies & proportion safely treated’.
Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems
From source.
[Summary report]. Retrieved from: EAT website
68. Extraction data: International Resource Panel. (2024).
55. Bianchi, M., Cascavilla, A., Diaz, J. C., Ladu, L., Blazquez,
Global material flows database. Retrieved from: IRP
B. P., Pierre, M., … Yilan, G. (2024). Circular Bioeconomy:
website; Population data: United Nations, Department of
A review of empirical practices across implementation
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2024).
scales. Journal of Cleaner Production, 477, 143816.
World population prospects: The 2024 revision. Retrieved
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143816
from: UN website
56. At the national level, considering both the domestic
69. Target based on: Bringezu, S. (2015). Possible target
material consumption and raw material consumption of
corridor for sustainable use of global material resources.
biomass is essential to both optimise biomass use and
Resources, 4(1), 25-54. doi: 10.3390/resources4010025
avoid burden shifting between countries through trade.
70. FAO & UN Water. (2024). Progress on the level of water stress:
57. Halpern, B. S., Frazier, M., Verstaen, J., Rayner, P.-E.,
Mid-term status of SDG Indicator 6.4.2 and acceleration
Clawson, G., Blanchard, J. L., … Williams, D. R. (2022). The
needs, with special focus on food security. Rome: FAO.
environmental footprint of Global Food Production. Nature
Retrieved from: UN Water website
Sustainability, 5(12), 1027–1039. doi:10.1038/s41893-022-
00965-x 71. Circle Economy analysis.

58. Stenzel, F., Greve, P., Lucht, W., Tramberend, S., Wada, Y., 72. With 2011 as a baseline year.
& Gerten, D. (2021). Irrigation of biomass plantations may
73. Protected Planet. (2024). The protected planet report 2024.
globally increase water stress more than climate change.
Retrieved from: Protected Planet website
Nature Communications, 12(1). doi:10.1038/s41467-021-
21640-3 74. Protected Planet. (2021). The protected planet report 2021.
Retrieved from: Protected Planet website
59. FAO. (2024). Progress on the level of water stress. Retrieved
from: UN Water website 75. Target based on: Convention on Biological Diversity.
(2022). Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework.
60. For example, although growing biomass for renewable
Retrieved from: Convention on Biological Diversity website
energy can help mitigate climate change, irrigating such
crops can also cause significant water stress—with severe 76. Circle Economy analysis.
consequences for the people living in these areas.
77. This target is based on Sustainable Development
61. FAO. (2024). Progress on the level of water stress. Retrieved Goal 6.3, which calls for a 50% reduction in untreated
from: UN Water website wastewater. It’s estimated that the share of untreated
wastewater is 80%. This should shift to 40% untreated
62. Ritchie, H. (2021). Deforestation and forest loss. Retrieved
and 60% treated. While this data comes from a 2018
from: OurWorldinData website
report, more recent sources only consider reported data
63. Estoque, R. C., Dasgupta, R., Winkler, K., Avitabile, and thus highly underestimate the share of untreated
V., Johnson, B. A., Myint, S. W., … Lasco, R. D. (2022). wastewater. Source: UN Water. (2018). Water quality and
Spatiotemporal pattern of global forest change wastewater. Retrieved from: UN Water website. Also see:
over the past 60 years and the forest transition UN Water. (2024). Progress on the proportion of domestic
theory. Environmental Research Letters, 17(8), 084022. and industrial wastewater flows safely treated. Retrieved
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac7df5 from: UN Water website

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 68

78. This indicator also covers the harvest of wild animal 91. Blight, G. (2011). Mine waste. Waste, 77–88. doi:10.1016/
stocks—fish catch, for example, where respecting b978-0-12-381475-3.10005-1
regeneration rates is equally crucial and over-extraction
92. World Bank Group. (2018, September 20). Global waste to
has devastating impacts on biodiversity.
grow by 70 percent by 2050 unless urgent action is taken:
79. Borrelli, P., Robinson, D. A., Fleischer, L. R., Lugato, World Bank report. World Bank Group. Retrieved from:
E., Ballabio, C., Alewell, C., … Panagos, P. (2017). An World Bank website
assessment of the global impact of 21st century land
93. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR).
use change on soil erosion. Nature Communications, 8(1).
(n.d.). Landfilling. Retrieved from: UNDRR website
doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7
94. EEA. (2024). Diversion of waste from landfill in Europe.
80. Carbon is sequestered from and emitted to the biosphere
Retrieved from: EEA website
through these cycles, as carbon dioxide is absorbed from
the atmosphere through photosynthesis and stored in 95. World Resources Institute (WRI). (2023). Seven things to
biomass, and emitted back to the atmosphere when know about carbon capture, utilization and sequestration.
biomass is incinerated or decomposed. These emissions Retrieved from: WRI website
balance out the initial carbon sequestration, resulting in a
96. IRP. (2024). Global resources outlook 2024: Bend the trend.
carbon balance.
Pathways to a liveable planet as resource use spikes. UNEP:
81. Navare, K., Muys, B., Vrancken, K. C., & Van Acker, K. Nairobi. Retrieved from: UNEP website
(2021a). Circular economy monitoring – how to make it apt
97. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2024). World Energy
for biological cycles? Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
Outlook 2024. Paris: IEA. Retrieved from: IEA website
170, 105563. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105563
98. Enerdata. (2024). World energy & climate statistics:
82. Peng, L., Searchinger, T. D., Zionts, J., & Waite, R. (2023).
Yearbook 2024. Retrieved from: Enerdata website
The carbon costs of Global Wood harvests. Nature,
620(7972), 110–115. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06187-1 99. Energy Transitions Commission. (2023). Material and
resource requirements for the energy transition. Retrieved
83. Houghton, R., & Castanho, A. (2022). Annual emissions of
from: Energy Transitions Commission website
carbon from land use, land-use change, and forestry 1850–
2020. doi:10.5194/essd-2022-351 100. IRENA. (2023). Geopolitics of the energy transition: Critical
materials. Retrieved from: IRENA website
84. Doelman, J. C., Verhagen, W., Stehfest, E., & van Vuuren,
D. P. (2023). The role of peatland degradation, protection 101. UNEP. (2024). Critical Transitions: Circularity, equity, and
and restoration for climate change mitigation in the SSP responsibility in the quest for energy transition minerals -
scenarios. Environmental Research: Climate, 2(3), 035002. Working Paper. Retrieved from: UNEP website
doi:10.1088/2752-5295/acd5f4
102. Watari, T., Nansai, K., Nakajima, K., & Giurco, D. (2021).
85. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Sustainable energy transitions require enhanced
(2021). Peatlands and climate change. Retrieved from: IUCN resource governance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 312,
website 127698. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127698

86. Hansis, E., Davis, S. J., & Pongratz, J. (2015). Relevance 103. IEA. (2021). The role of critical minerals in clean energy
of methodological choices for accounting of Land Use transitions. IEA: Paris. Retrieved from: IEA website
Change Carbon Fluxes. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 29(8),
104. UNEP. (n.d.). Indicator 12.c.1. Retrieved from: UNEP
1230–1246. doi:10.1002/2014gb004997
website
87. Peng, L., Searchinger, T. D., Zionts, J., & Waite, R. (2023).
105. Estimate based on the following source, applied to IEA
The carbon costs of Global Wood harvests. Nature,
data: Enerdata. (2024). World energy & climate statistics:
620(7972), 110–115. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06187-1
Yearbook 2024: Total energy production. Retrieved from:
88. Macintosh, A. K. (2012). Lulucf in the post-2012 regime: Enerdata website
Fixing the problems of the past? Climate Policy, 12(3), 341–
106. Grubler, A., Wilson, C., Bento, N., Boza-Kiss, B., Krey, V.,
355. doi:10.1080/14693062.2011.605711
McCollum, D., Rao, N., Riahi, K., Rogelj, J., De Stercke, S.,
89. Navare, K., Muys, B., Vrancken, K. C., & Van Acker, K. (2021). Cullen, J., Frank, S., Fricko, O., Guo, F., Gidden, M., Havlik,
Circular economy monitoring – How to make it apt for P., Huppmann, D., Kiesewetter, G., Rafaj, P., Schöpp, W., et
biological cycles? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, al. (2018). A low energy demand scenario for meeting the
170, 105563. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105563 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without
negative emission technologies. Nature Energy, 3 (6), 517-
90. This is waste related to fossil-fuel based products—such as
525. doi:10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6
plastics, chemicals and fertilisers—rather than fossil fuels
used for energy purposes, which are captured 107. IEA. (2024). Electricity 2024: Analysis and forecast to 2026.
under ‘Fossil Fuels’. Retrieved from: IEA website

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 69

108. Fossil fuels still account for about half of global electricity 124. Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Lauk, C., Haas, W.,
generation: coal about 36% and natural gas about 24%. Tanikawa, H., Fishman, T., … Haberl, H. (2017). Global
Source. socioeconomic material stocks rise 23-fold over the
20th century and require half of annual resource use.
109. IEA & UN Statistics Division. (2024). The energy progress
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(8),
report. Retrieved from: Tracking SDG 7 website
1880–1885. doi:10.1073/pnas.1613773114
110. This number excludes the oxygen in emissions, but does
125. Schiller, G., & Roscher, J. (2023). Impact of urbanization
include some combustion-related solid and liquid waste,
on construction material consumption: A global analysis.
such as ashes and sludges. The share of emissions out of
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 27(3), 1021-1036.
Processed Outputs is therefore slightly overestimated.
126. Duro, J.A., Perez-Laborda, A., Löw, M., Matej, S., Plank,
111. Estimate based on the following source, applied to IEA
B., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., & Haberl, H. (2024).
data: Enerdata. (2024). World energy & climate statistics:
Spatial patterns of built structures co-determine
Yearbook 2024: Total energy production. Retrieved from:
nations’ level of resource demand. Journal of Industrial
Enerdata website
Ecology, 28, 289-302. doi:10.1111/jiec.13470
112. Energy Institute. (2024). Statistical review of world energy.
127. World Bank Group. (n.d.). Urban population (% of total
Retrieved from: Energy Institute website
population. Retrieved from: World Bank website
113. IEA. (2018). World energy outlook 2019. Retrieved from:
128. UN. (2018). World urbanisation prospects 2018: Highlights.
IEA website
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
114. Energy Institute. (2024). Statistical review of world energy. Division. Retrieved from: UN website
Retrieved from: Energy Institute website
129. IRP. (2018). The weight of cities: Resource requirements of
115. Reduction to be achieved by 2030 and 2050. Target future urbanization. Nairobi: UNEP. Retrieved from: IRP
based on: IPCC. (2018). Special report: Global Warming of website
1.5 ºC (Table 2.6). Retrieved from: IPCC website
130. IRP. (2018). The weight of cities: Resource requirements of
116. International Energy Agency & UN Statistics Division. future urbanization. Nairobi: UNEP. Retrieved from: IRP
(2024). The energy progress report. Retrieved from: website
Tracking SDG 7 website
131. Elhacham, E., Ben-Uri, L., Grozovski, J., Bar-On, Y. M., &
117. Increase to be achieved by 2030, with 70–85% of Milo, R. (2020). Global human-made mass exceeds all
electricity generation from renewable sources by 2050. living biomass. Nature, 588(7838), 442–444. doi:10.1038/
Target based on: IPCC. (2018). Special report: Global s41586-020-3010-5
Warming of 1.5 ºC. Retrieved from: IPCC website
132. Wiedenhofer, D., Streeck, J., Wieland, H., Grammer, B.,
118. IEA. (2018). World energy outlook 2019. Retrieved from: Baumgart, A., Plank, B., et al. (2024). From extraction to
IEA website end-uses and waste management: Modeling economy-
wide material cycles and stock dynamics around the
119. IEA. (2022). World energy outlook 2022. Retrieved from:
world. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 28, 1464-1480.
IEA website
doi:10.1111/jiec.13575
120. Jones, M.W., Peters, G., Gasser, T., Andrew, R.M.,
133. Deetman, S., Marinova, S., Voet, E., Vuuren, D.,
Schwingshackl, C., Gütschow, J.,Houghton, R.A.,
Edelenbosch, O., & Heijungs, R. (2020). Modelling
Friedlingstein, P., Pongratz, J., & Le Quéré, C. (2024).
global material stocks and flows for residential and
National contributions to climate change due to
service sector buildings towards 2050. Journal of Cleaner
historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and
Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118658
nitrous oxide. Scientific Data. Zenodo. doi:10.5281/
zenodo.14054503. 134. Wang, R., Hertwich, E. G., Fishman, T., Deetman, S.,
Behrens, P., Chen, W., … Zimmerman, J. B. (2023). The
121. This reduction is compared to 2010 levels and should be
legacy environmental footprints of manufactured capital.
achieved by 2030. Further targets include -65% by 2035
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(24).
and net zero by 2050. Target based on: IPCC. (2023). Sixth
doi:10.1073/pnas.2218828120
assessment report. Retrieved from: IPCC website
135. Statista. (2024). Aggregated floor area of buildings
122. Circle Economy analysis.
worldwide from 2010 to 2022 with a forecast for 2030.
123. This is only the case if there is no overall growth in Retrieved from: Statista website
material demand and/or stock build up. It’s important
136. Circle Economy. (2024). The circularity gap report 2024.
to note that R-strategies won’t inherently lead to more
Amsterdam: Circle Economy. Retrieved from: CGR
sustainable outcomes if the use of virgin materials
website
continues to grow.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 70

137. Lanau, M., Liu, G., Kral, U., Wiedenhofer, D., Keijzer, 151. IRP. (2024). Global resources outlook 2024: Bend the
E., Yu, C., & Ehlert, C. (2019). Taking stock of built trend. Pathways to a liveable planet as resource use
environment stock studies: Progress and prospects. spikes. UNEP: Nairobi. Retrieved from: UNEP website
Environmental Science & Technology, 53(15), 8499–8515.
152. IRP. (2024). Global resources outlook 2024: Bend the
doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b06652
trend. Pathways to a liveable planet as resource use
138. Schiller, G., & Roscher, J. (2023). Impact of urbanization spikes. UNEP: Nairobi. Retrieved from: UNEP website
on construction material consumption: A global
153. UNEP’s One Planet Network, UNDP & UNFCCC
analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 27(3), 1021–
Secretariat. (2023). Building circularity into Nationally
1036. doi:10.1111/jiec.13392
Determined Contributions (NDCs) – a practical toolbox.
139. Circle Economy analysis. Retrieved from: UNEP website

140. Circle Economy analysis. 154. Global Alliance on Circular Economy and Resource
Efficiency (GACERE). (2024). Circular economy and
141. Circle Economy analysis.
extended producer responsibility [Webinar report].
142. Circle Economy analysis. Retrieved from: UNIDO website

143. Circle Economy analysis. 155. UNEP. (2024). Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee
to develop an international legally binding instrument on
144. This goal stems from Circle Economy’s research
plastic pollution, including in the marine environment.
conducted for the Circularity Gap Report 2021, which
Retrieved from: UNEP website
found that circular strategies applied across key
sectors could reduce material use by approximately 156. Cordonier Segger, M.-C., & Schrijver, N. J. (2021).
one-third and boost the Circularity Metric to 17%. ILA guidelines for Sustainable Natural Resources
Management for Development. Netherlands
145. Target based on: Fanning, A., O’Neill, D., Hickel, J., &
International Law Review, 68(2), 315–347. doi:10.1007/
Roux, N. (2022) The social shortfall and ecological
s40802-021-00190-x
overshoot of nations. Nature Portfolio. doi:10.1038/
s41893-021-00799-z 157. IRP. (2020). Mineral resource governance in the
21st Century: Gearing extractive industries towards
146. According to the UN medium-fertility variant
sustainable development. Retrieved from: IRP website
from source.

147. Target based on: UNEP. (2022). Emissions gap report

2022. Retrieved from: UNEP website

148. Target based on: Fritsche, U., Brunori, G.,

Chiaramonti, D., Galanakis, C., Matthews, R. &
Panoutsou, C. (2021). Future transitions for the
bioeconomy towards sustainable development and a
climate-neutral economy - foresight scenarios for the
EU bioeconomy in 2050. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union. doi:10.2760/469550,
JRC123532.

149. Target based on: Bringezu, S. (2015). Possible target

corridor for sustainable use of global material
resources. Resources, 4(1), 25-54. doi: 10.3390/
resources4010025

150. Prominent examples of measurement frameworks

and reporting standards that can guide businesses
in measuring their circular economy performance
include the Circular Transition Indicators (CTI), the
European Sustainability Reporting Standard on
Resource Use and Circular Economy (ESRS E5), the GRI
301 and 306, and ISO 59020. Harmonisation efforts
across these standards are also underway by the
development of the Global Circularity Protocol by the
WBCSD and the UN One Planet Network.

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 71

Acknowledgements

Circle Economy would like to thank the funders, Version 1.0 (May 2025)
authors, contributors and interviewees for their
This work is licensed under a Creative
contribution to the preparation of this edition of
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
the Circularity Gap Report. Authors, contributors
International License
and interviewees have contributed to the report in
their individual capacities. Their affiliations are only
mentioned for identification purposes.

How to cite this report: Circle Economy.

Lead authors (Circle Economy) (2025). The circularity gap report 2025.
Ana Birliga Sutherland, Álvaro Conde, Marijana Novak, Amsterdam: Circle Economy.
Alex Colloricchio

Contributing authors (Circle

Economy)
Mathijs Nelemans, Wen-Yu Chen, Pau Ruiz, Jacco
Jochemsen, Marc de Wit

Contributors (Circle Economy)

Shelby Kearns, Krijn Smits, Matthew Fraser, Andrew
Keys, Sofia Ferrando, Irlanda Mora, Amy Kummetha,
Luibov Glazunova, Megan Murdie, Alexandru Grigoras,
Lieke Pijpers

Contributors (Deloitte)
David Rakowski, Dieuwertje Ewalts, Cecilia Dall Acqua,
Christiaan Kusters, Lian van Rooij, Michelle Varney,
Blythe Aronowitz, Freedom-Kai Phillips, Tom Horigan,
Sue Harvey Brown

Coalition
Jerome Stucki (UNIDO), Rebecca Tauer (WWF
Germany), Dieuwertje Ewalts (Deloitte), Christiaan
Kusters (Deloitte), Edward Sims (Deloitte), Georgine
Roodenrys (Deloitte), Kari Herlevi (Sitra), Jelmer
Hoogzaad (Shifting Paradigms), Myriam Linster
(OECD), Frithjof Laubinger (OECD)

The Circularity Gap Report 2025 72

circle-economy.com
 la ri ty Gap Repo
i r c u rt 2
eC 02
5
Th

WHITE PAPER

A COMMON FRAMEWORK TO
MONITOR AND MEASURE CIRCULARITY
Establishing a unified framework to scope,
measure and report on the circular economy

Author: Alex Colloricchio

May 2025
CONTENTS

CONTENTS​ 2
ABOUT CIRCLE ECONOMY​ 2
1. INTRODUCTION​ 2
2. UNPACKING THE CIRCULARITY INDICATOR SET​ 4
3. OTHER LEADING INDICATOR FRAMEWORKS​ 8
ISO/DIS 59020:2023(E): Circular Economy—Measuring and Assessing Circularity​ 8
UNECE/OECD: Conference of European Statisticians Guidelines for Measuring Circular Economy—Part
A: Conceptual Framework, Indicators and Measurement Framework​ 9
4. INTEGRATING THE CIRCULARITY INDICATOR SET AND OTHER LEADING FRAMEWORKS​ 11
 ABOUT CIRCLE ECONOMY
Circle Economy is driving the transition to a new economy. In
this economy we help businesses, cities and nations leverage
business opportunities, reduce costs, create jobs and inspire
behavioural change. As a global impact organisation, our
international team equips business leaders and policymakers
with the insights, strategies, and tools to turn circular ambition
into action.

Circle Economy has been at the forefront of the circular

economy transition since 2012. Our annual Circularity Gap
Report sets the standard for measuring progress and we
manage the world’s largest circularity database, encompassing
data from over 90 nations, 350 cities, and 1,000 businesses.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Circularity Gap Report 2025 provides a comprehensive progress report on the state of the
global circular economy. With the understanding that the circular economy transition is about
more than just recycling, the report opens up the ‘Circularity Gap’, providing a wealth of headline
and sub-indicators to support the Circularity Metric—measured by Circle Economy since 2018. It
presents and builds on the Circularity Indicator Set, a dashboard of 11 indicators, incorporating
beneficial aspects of other leading frameworks: ISO/DIS 59020:2023(E): Circular
Economy—Measuring and Assessing Circularity and the Conference of European Statisticians
Guidelines for Measuring Circular Economy, Part A: Conceptual Framework, Indicators and
Measurement Framework. This complementary white paper gives deeper insight into the
Circularity Indicator Set, explores the structure and scope of the two additional frameworks, and
lays out how we’ve incorporated these in our work.

2. UNPACKING THE CIRCULARITY INDICATOR

SET
The Circularity Indicator Set is a system of tiered indicators designed to measure how circular an
economy is. This indicator set and its underlying measurement framework, which are explored in
more depth in the methodology document of the Circularity Gap Report 2025, has been
historically used by and built upon by Circle Economy to provide insight into all inputs and
outputs of an economy. Our ‘Circularity Metric’—or Input Technical Cycling rate—is perhaps the
most well-known of these indicators. Collectively, the Indicator Set examines the relationships
between resources we take from nature, how we use them, and their impact on the
environment. In alignment with the System of Environmental-Economic Accounts Central
Framework (SEEA-CF), this framework is centred on the idea of a socioeconomic system that
rests ‘inside’ the environment, with materials flowing between and within the two. Although this
analysis has a global scope, the measurement framework can be set up at the (multi- and
sub-)national level to account for trade and the movement of materials between nations, which
is important when assessing environmental footprints. Circle Economy supports national and
regional economies in using the Circularity Indicator Set for analysis, but is also using it for
targeted assessments, such as for industries: the Circularity Gap Report Textiles, launched in 2024,
for example. The Indicator Set can also be adapted for analysis at the product level. This
flexibility comes from its tiered structure, which allows for detailed or broader analysis
depending on the context. The Indicator Set relies—as much as possible—on highly-harmonised
and regularly updated data, ensuring accurate comparisons between countries and enabling the
consistent monitoring of progress toward a circular economy. This framework lends itself well to
integration with other leading indicator frameworks for the circular economy, discussed in the
following section.

The Circularity Indicator Set is grounded in the SEEA-CF, and its subsystem of Economy-Wide
Material Flow Accounts (EW-MFA), and builds upon leading academic work in the field of
industrial ecology.1 2 3 4 It expands on the scope of traditional EW-MFA, providing a more
comprehensive measure of the scale and circularity of total material and waste flows. This
comprehensive measure is enabled by core features of the Set, discussed in more detail below:

●​ The distinction between rate and scale indicators to measure circularity at both the
input and output side;
●​ The distinction between technical and ecological cycles;
●​ The distinction between natural and anthropogenic flows;
●​ The distinction between material flows and stocks.

Rate and scale indicators. Rate indicators, expressed as percentages of a total, measure the
‘circular performance’ of an economy. An Input Technical Cycling rate (Circularity Metric) of 0%
represents a fully linear economy, while a rate of 100% represents a (thermodynamically
unfeasible) perfect circular economy, where all processed materials are cycled without losses.
Each indicator in the Set is also ascribed a ‘scale’ figure, which expresses the material use as an
absolute value. Rate and scale indicators are measured at both the input and output side (see
Table one).

Technical and ecological cycling rates. The technical cycle refers to the processes that
products and materials flow through in order to maintain their highest possible value at all
times. It involves finite materials (alongside small amounts of biomass that enter the technical
cycle) that are not consumed during use and industrial processes such as reuse, refurbishment,
remanufacturing and recycling. In the Circularity Gap Report approach specifically, it includes
recyclable end-of-life waste handled by waste management (on the output side) and
reintroduced into the market as secondary materials (on the input side) - as well as reused
products and by-products that are cycled without becoming waste. It does not include flows
related to other processes that extend product lifetimes such as repair, sharing, refurbishment
or remanufacturing. The ecological cycle refers to the processes—such as composting and
anaerobic digestion—that collectively help regenerate natural capital. It involves renewable
materials that can decompose and reintegrate into natural cycles, preferably regenerating and at
the very least without harming ecosystems. In the Circularity Gap Report approach specifically, it
refers to the flow of carbon-neutral biomass and the resulting outflows to the environment,
which re-enter global biogeochemical cycles and are separate from the technical system. Both
rates—referring to technical and ecological cycling—are based on the same system definitions
and measured against the same reference flow: processed materials, whether for input or
interim output.. This shared denominator ensures that the rates are consistent, mutually

1
Mayer, A., Haas, W., Wiedenhofer, D., Krausmann, F., Nuss, P., & Blengini, G. A. (2018a). Measuring progress towards a
circular economy: A monitoring framework for economy‐wide material loop closing in the EU28. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 23(1), 62–76. doi:10.1111/jiec.12809
2
Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., & Heinz, M. (2015). How circular is the global economy?: An assessment of
material flows, waste production, and recycling in the European Union and the World in 2005. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
19(5), 765–777. doi:10.1111/jiec.12244
3
Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Lauk, C., & Mayer, A. (2020). Spaceship Earth’s odyssey to a circular economy
- a century long perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 163, 105076. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105076
4
Haas, W., Virág, D., Wiedenhofer, D., & von Blottnitz, H. (2023). How circular is an extractive economy? South Africa’s
export orientation results in low circularity and insufficient societal stocks for service-provisioning. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 199, 107290. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107290
exclusive, and additive, meaning they can be combined without overlap. It also makes them
applicable at different scales, from sector-level analyses to global assessments.

Natural and anthropogenic flows. Natural flows are resources (such as extracted raw
materials on the input side) or residuals (discharged waste and emissions on the output side)
that originate from or are destined to return to the environment. Notably, natural flows can
include both ecological, potentially-renewable materials, as well as inert non-renewable ones,
such as metals, non-metallic minerals and fossil fuels. Anthropogenic flows, by contrast,
originate from or are destined to return to socioeconomic systems. While natural flows contain
only resources, anthropogenic flows can also contain man-made manufactured or
semi-manufactured products in addition to resources. This distinction is particularly relevant in
the context of trade and the calculation of Raw Material Equivalents5 in material footprinting.

Flows and stocks. Activities in the socioeconomic system6 are fed by flows of materials: these
come from the natural environment, are processed by industries, and are then either
accumulated in physical stocks or transformed and released back into the environment as waste
or emissions. Materials added to stocks—like buildings, infrastructure, and durable goods like
machinery, equipment and vehicles—are represented by the indicator Net Additions to Stock.
This indicator measures the physical growth of an economy, and exposes the time lag between
material consumption and waste generation. Although circular activities like repair,
remanufacturing and sharing are not explicitly captured by the Circularity Indicator Set, their
impact is implicitly captured by Net Additions to Stock: we would expect to see an increase in the
service lifetimes of in-use stocks and potentially a stabilisation in the growth of in-use stocks.

Table one provides values for each headline indicator on the input and output side for 2021, the year of
latest available data.7

Input Output

Indicator Rate (%) Scale Rate (%) Scale (billion

(billion tonnes)
tonnes)

Technical Cycling
6.9% 7.3 11.2% 7.3
Circular rate
material
flows Ecological Cycling
21.5% 22.8 35.5% 23.2
Potential rate

Non-Renewable
2.2% 2.3 3.4% 2.2
Biomass rate
Linear
material Non-Renewable
flows 18.1% 19.2 28.6% 18.8
Flows rate

5
Raw Material Equivalents refers to all the materials used to manufacture each component of a product. For example, a
smartphone may only weigh a couple hundred grams, but requires far more resources to produce.
6
Socioeconomic systems are large systems with people at the core, including social, economic, scientific, technological,
and ecological environment fields, involving various aspects of human activities and the many complex factors of the
living environment.
7
Circle Economy analysis.
 Input Output

Indicator Rate (%) Scale Rate (%) Scale (billion

(billion tonnes)
tonnes)

Non-Circular Flows
13.3% 14.1 21.6% 14.2
rate

Net
Net Additions to
stock 38.0% 40.3 n/a n/a
Stock
build-up

Since the launch of the first Circularity Gap Report in 2018, Circle Economy has endeavoured to
analyse circularity, first for the globe and now for numerous countries, regions, cities and
industries. As we’ve explored different themes linked to the circular economy—from climate
breakdown and the planetary boundaries to jobs and well-being—we’ve continually strived to
further develop and improve upon the Circularity Indicator Set, based on leading academic
work. Improvements include:

●​ The systematic inclusion of trade flows for recycled waste and by-products, following
Eurostat’s Circular Material Use Rate methodology, as well as trade flows of reused
products when national data is available;
●​ Accounting for domestically consumed by-products and reused products based on
national sources, if accessible;
●​ The integration of indirect flows, or the upstream raw material requirements of trade,
allowing for indicators to be calculated using both apparent consumption (Domestic
Material Consumption) and material footprint (Raw Material Consumption);
●​ Cross-checking and reconciling results from the traditional and extended EW-MFA
approaches to ensure robust and consistent outputs.

3. OTHER LEADING INDICATOR FRAMEWORKS

ISO/DIS 59020:2023(E): Circular Economy—Measuring and
Assessing Circularity
The recently published ISO/DIS 59020:2023(E) Circular Economy—Measuring and Assessing
Circularity document, created by the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), is the
first authoritative effort to standardise quantitative assessments of the circular economy. It is
part of the broader ISO 59000 series, which establishes shared terminology, principles, and
guidelines to help organisations effectively implement circular strategies. This series also
includes ISO/DIS 59004 Circular Economy—Terminology, Principles and Guidance for
Implementation, for example, discussed in more detail below. The ISO standard provides
guidance for evaluating circularity, promoting sustainable resource management, and
encouraging transparency in reporting. While the ISO/DIS 59020 standard is largely
operational—meaning it’s centred on boundary setting, data acquisition, quality assurance, and
documentation and reporting—it also establishes a measurement framework along with 14 core
circularity indicators (learn more about types of frameworks in the text box on page 10).

These indicators take a multilevel perspective, pertaining to systems (regions, organisations, and
products), structures (subsystems, sub-regions, and functional units, for example) and circular
activities (such as reuse, repair, and so on). Indicators are also structured along four categories:
energy, water, economic value, and inflows and outflows of resources. Resource indicators
categorise inflows and outflows into four mutually exclusive types—recycled, reused, virgin
renewable, and virgin non-renewable—which prevents overlap and adds up to 100%. The
framework also factors in stocks—which remain in use over time—though this is done as a
separate indicator, assessing product lifetimes in comparison to industry averages rather than
fully integrating stock levels into material flow calculations.

The ISO/DIS measurement framework and indicator set are both relatively simple. The
measurement framework defines the system being analysed in terms of its level, structure, and
actions. The system in focus is embedded into environmental and social systems, with a few
general flows describing how they interact with each other: ‘primary resource inflows’ represents
the sourcing of materials from the environment, for example, while ‘non-circular resource
outputs’ represents the outflow of materials to the environment. Inflows and outflows can also
be considered ‘circular’ depending on the system boundary they cross: they can be internal,
staying within the system in focus (reprocessing of scrap, for example), re-entering from the
socioeconomic system (through recycling, for example), or re-entering from the environmental
system (through composting, for example). In this framework, trade flows and interactions with
other ‘systems’—such as other national economies—are not specified.

ISO/DIS 59004 Circular Economy—Terminology, Principles and Guidance for Implementation,

separate from the measurement framework, lays out terms and definitions, transitioning
principles, and general practical aspects of shifting to a circular economy. While this is useful for
organisations to understand and contribute to circularity, it does not systematically or
structurally organise the indicators proposed in the standard. In the ISO/DIS 59020 standard,
five categories of core indicators—resource inflows, resource outflows, energy, water, and
value—are not directly addressed by the document. It instead largely centres on general
principles organisations should align with—system thinking and value creation, for
example—and actions they should carry out, such as design for circularity, repair, and recycling.
What’s more, although the standard acknowledges the interconnectedness of economic, social,
and environmental systems and suggests complementary methods for impact assessment, it
lacks a structured, interlinked framework for measuring circularity. Critical aspects like
environmental impact, employment effects, supply security, and policy considerations are
mentioned but not integrated into a cohesive measurement approach. As a result, the ISO 59000
series serves as a conceptual foundation but falls short of offering a comprehensive indicator
framework for the circular economy.
UNECE/OECD: Conference of European Statisticians Guidelines
for Measuring Circular Economy—Part A: Conceptual
Framework, Indicators and Measurement Framework
This document, prepared jointly by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), is among
the most comprehensive publications on measuring circular progress at the national level. Its
headline definition captures the core principles shared across circular economy models:
maximising the value of materials for as long as possible, minimising material input and
consumption, preventing waste, and reducing negative environmental impacts throughout a
material’s life cycle. Contrary to the ISO standard, the UNECE/OECD guidelines also offer a
conceptual framework (see text box on page 10), and combines the main features of a circular
economy—such as the four flows*8 9—with the basic principles of environmental accounting and
reporting.10 11 12 All dimensions of the circular economy—including physical, environmental, and
systemic aspects across the entire lifecycle of materials, products, and services—are covered.
Core indicators are structured according to four main so-called ‘building blocks’: the material
life cycle and value chain, interactions with the environment, socioeconomic
opportunities, and responses and actions (including innovation, regulatory and other
instruments, and education, for example).

Each building block has a subset of themes and topics that provide an increasing level of detail,
with each theme and topic having its own set of complementary and contextual indicators.13 The
full set comprises 16 core indicators (plus 5 placeholders for situations where no suitable
indicator can be identified), more than 70 complementary indicators, and 13 contextual
indicators.14 While these all fit within one overarching conceptual and measurement framework,
they still act as stand-alone indicators for a broad range of interlinked topics; however, while this
set comprehensively covers all aspects relevant to the circular economy, it lacks a common
denominator, meaning that indicators may use different units, methods or scales. This
fundamental difference between indicators means that they lack a common basis for
comparison or aggregation, making it difficult to integrate into a cohesive whole.

8
Potting, J., Hanemaaijer, A., Delahaye, R., Ganzevles, J., Hoekstra, R. & Lijzen, J. (2018). Circular Economy: What we want to
know and can measure. Framework and baseline assessment for monitoring the progress of the circular economy in the
Netherlands. The Hague: PBL, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Retrieved from: PBL website
9
Bocken, N. M., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & van der Grinten, B. (2016). Product design and business model strategies for a
circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33(5), 308–320. doi:10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124
10
UN, EU, FAO, IMF, OECD, & WB. (2014). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 — Central framework.
Retrieved from: SEEA UN website
11
UNEP. (2021). The use of natural resources in the economy: A global manual on economy wide material flow accounting.
Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved from: IRP website
12
OECD. (1993). Core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews. Environmental Monograph, 83.
13
For example, the ‘material life cycle and value chain’ building block is divided into three themes: the first of these ‘The
material basis of the economy—production, consumption, accumulation” is further divided into three topics, ‘Material
inputs’, ‘Material consumption’ and ‘Accumulation’. A number of indicators is characterised for each.
14
Core and complementary indicators are related to each other: for instance, the ‘National recycling rate’ indicator is
related to the ‘Waste going to final disposal’, ‘Circular material use rate’, and ‘Ratio of products repaired or reused to new
products sold’ indicators. However, the link between them is underspecified, posing a number of questions: are they
calculated using the same or similar metrics? Where and how do they differ? Do they overlap?
 * The four flows of the circular economy are narrow (use less), slow (use longer), cycle (use again), and regenerate
(make clean), as developed by Bocken et al. (2016).

As noted, the OECD/UNECE guidelines first define a conceptual framework, within which the
measurement framework is embedded. Notably—and in contrast to the ISO/DIS standard—the
guidelines explicitly cover the interactions between the system in focus (a national economy, for
example) with other economies and their environments. It considers the cross-border impacts
between socioeconomic systems, particularly those linked to trade and their effects on natural
assets and environmental quality both domestically and internationally.

The ‘material life cycle and value chain’ building block is the core of measuring the circular
economy. It is first translated into simple measurement concepts comparable to those given by
the ISO/DIS 59020 framework. Next, the framework is expanded to focus on interactions
between the production and consumption system with the waste management system and
other more informal waste management activities.

Understanding different types of frameworks

What to measure: A conceptual framework, such as that offered by the UNECE/OECD

guidelines, helps structure the selection of indicators to ensure all important aspects of the
circular economy are covered. It reflects the integrated, cross-cutting nature of the circular
economy and organises indicators in a way that’s practical and accessible for decision-makers
and the public.

How to measure it, from a data perspective: A measurement and monitoring framework,
offered by both the ISO standard and UNECE/OECD guidelines, helps to structure and
combine underlying data, link circular economy concepts and definitions to the terms and
definitions used in official statistics, and ensure that data sets are coherent. These benefit
policymakers by providing reliable, comparable and comprehensive data and indicators to
support informed decision-making.

How to measure it, from a process perspective: An operational framework, such as that
offered by the ISO standard, tells us how to measure circularity by providing rules, procedures
and guidelines on the processes underlying the development and use of indicators. It can be
used to implement measurement efforts, replicate standardised results and compare them.

4. INTEGRATING THE CIRCULARITY INDICATOR

SET AND OTHER LEADING FRAMEWORKS
Each of the leading frameworks discussed above brings its own benefits. The UNECE/OECD’s
conceptual and measurement frameworks offer structure and comprehensiveness—although
the related indicator set lacks a common denominator. The ISO approach of offering mutually
exclusive indicators with a shared common denominator provides cohesiveness and unity, but
lacks the comprehensiveness of the UNECE/OECD frameworks. The Circularity Indicator Set
exhibits the beneficial aspects of each, offering a cohesive and comprehensive framework
suitable for many aims: the headline indicators, for example, are useful for raising awareness
and communicating circular progress to a more general audience, while lower-tier indicators can
provide government officials, policy analysts and other technical stakeholders with the in-depth
information needed to support decision making and agenda setting. The Set’s alignment with the
UNECE/OECD guidelines and the ISO standard ensures that it both fits into a broad and holistic
approach to measuring circularity while complying with emerging standards on the topic. To this
end, a full evaluation of the relationship between the Circularity Indicator Set, ISO standard and
UNECE/OECD framework—which explores their coverage and alignment—is available in Tables
two and three.

Table two summarises the key elements of the ISO/DIS 59020:2023(E) standard and its alignment with the
CGR methodology.

Coverage/
Element Notes
Alignment

‘The framework is applicable to multiple levels of

an economic system, ranging from regional,
inter-organisational, organisational to the product
Measurement dimensions level.’ While the ISO standard is focused on the
Partial
and levels of application organisational (micro) level, the CGR
methodology is focused on the regional,
national and supranational (meso and macro)
level.

While Boundary setting is inherently covered

(ensuring appropriate boundaries and
meaningful outcome), certain elements of the
circularity measurement, data acquisition,
Three-step operational
assessment and reporting are not. For instance,
framework entailing:
‘appropriate indicators of value with careful
Boundary setting, circularity
Partial consideration of its retention, recovering or
measurement and data
addition to
acquisition and circularity
resource value or restoration (e.g. regeneration of
assessment and reporting
ecosystems’ is not covered. Specific goals for
data quality requirements are not formulated
or explicit provision for public disclosure of
comparative assertions are not made.

Goals can be set in scenario modelling in the

form of normative targets to explore their
broader environmental (and social)
implications.
Circular goals, aspects and Actions (e.g. 9R strategies, composting, energy
Partial
actions recovery) are included in the CGR scope by the
circular strategies and reflected in the scenario
modelling framework. Aspects (e.g. durability,
recyclability, repairability) relate to qualitative
characteristics of flows which are typically not
 considered in either baseline nor scenario
assessments.

The Resource flow measurement principle

defined as ‘resource inflows and outflows
crossing boundaries of the system in focus
(including losses and emissions)’ is aligned with
the EW-MFA economy-environmental boundary
Circular measurement
Partial definition.
taxonomy
Circular categories and related indicators are only
fully covered for resource inflows and outflow.
However, those for energy, water and
economics are only partially aligned with the
standard.

This is not covered by the standard itself, but a

reference to other standards is made. The CGR
methodology and models allow us to
Measuring and assessing
- quantitatively address elements of the social,
sustainability impacts
environmental and economic impact & value—
however they are currently not reported
(except for carbon footprint).

‘Sorting and processing losses’ in the recycling

process as the difference between inputs and
output to the recycling operation are not
quantified in CGR methodology. Inputs to the
recycling plant are considered a proxy for the
Resource inflows and output from recycling plants in the current CGR
Partial
outflows methodology. This doesn’t allow for a proper
distinction between recyclable (output) and
recycled (input) content. For stock additions
(lifespan of more than one year) indicators of
time such as average lifetimes are not covered
by the CGR methodology (static approach).

Table three summarises the key elements of the OECD/UNECE framework and its alignment with the CGR
methodology.

Coverage/
Element Notes
Alignment

EW-MFAs, AEAs, IOTs and the other building

Aligned with SNA and SEEA blocks of the CGR methodology are subsets of
Full
frameworks the SNA and SEEA framework and therefore
highly aligned.

Four building blocks based Only the Material life-cycle and value chain and
Partial
on accounting and Bellagio elements of the Socioeconomic opportunities
principles and the component are currently included. The
pressure-state-response methodology and models allow us to
(PSR) model quantitatively address elements of the
Interactions with the environment component,
however they are currently not reported
(except for climate). The Responses and actions
component is mostly addressed qualitatively.

Indicators on the level and characteristics of

material supply and their use in the economy or
Material life-cycle and in industries—particularly material inputs,
value chain Theme one: consumption, and accumulation—as well as
Full
Interactions with trade and indicators that relate material use to GDP,
globalisation value-added, or other socio-economic output
variables through intensity or productivity
ratios, are widely covered.

Indicators on waste generation, recycling rates,

circular use rates, shares of secondary raw
Material life-cycle and
materials in material inputs or consumption;
value chain Theme two:
renewable content of material used in
Management efficiency of
Full production processes, products diverted from
materials and waste, and
the waste stream (repaired, remanufactured,
the circularity of material
reused), materials leaving the economic cycle,
flows
i.e. waste going to final disposal, are widely
covered.

Material life-cycle and Indicators on exports and imports of materials,

value chain Theme three: second-hand goods, end-of-life products and
Full
Interactions with trade and waste, the physical trade balance, and the
globalisation material intensity of trade, are widely covered.

OECD environmental The Circularity Indicator Set can be organised

indicators 3-Tier structure into a 3-Tier structure where the UNECE/OECD’s
based on relevance, Full core and complementary indicators (Tier 1 and
measurability and 2) are both considered complementary (Tier 2)
usefulness and contextual are the same.

The framework needs to be scalable to the

interrelated levels the circular economy
operates on the micro (e.g. products and
companies), meso (e.g. sectors, industries,
Measurement dimensions cities, sub-national governments) and macro
Partial
and levels of application level ( i.e. national or supranational economies).
While the CGR framework lends well to
application to the macro and partially to the
meso level, it is not particularly suited to the
micro level.

Expanded versus The CGR measurement framework covers all

Partial
traditional scope of waste the elements of the UNECE proposed extended
 statistics scope of waste statistics. However, due to their
exclusion from traditional waste statistics, the
coverage is usually quite limited.

After years of providing a yearly check up on the global state of circularity—largely represented
by a single metric—we’re shifting gears: the Circularity Gap Report’s goal is building out the
Circularity Indicator Set to encompass the beneficial aspects of the other leading frameworks
discussed. This first comprehensive and cohesive look at measuring the circular economy is
explored in more depth in Chapter three of the Circularity Gap Report 2025, which presents the
Circularity Indicator Set supported by relevant sub-indicators for changemakers drawn from the
UNECE/OECD frameworks. Our focus is on converging the ‘material life cycle and value chain’
theme from the UNECE/OECD framework with the ‘resource inputs’ and ‘resource outputs’
categories from the ISO/DIS 59020 framework, providing a common language for two
frameworks that measure similar metrics but otherwise use varying scales and terminology. In
doing so, we benefit from applying the ‘mutually exclusive’ logic of the resource inputs and
outputs categories to the statistical domain of environmental accounts (for example, material
flow, emissions, waste, and water accounts), from which many UNECE ‘material life cycle and
value chain’ indicators are derived. This allows us to consistently measure themes relevant to the
circular economy—from the bioeconomy and energy transition to socioeconomic stocks—from
both a material inflow and outflow perspective.

Barriers to fully integrating the ISO/DIS standard and the UNECE/OECD framework

The main barrier to fully integrating these work streams lies in a few fundamental differences
in goals, scope and definitions. These are broadly summarised below:

●​ Focus and application: The ISO/DIS 59020 standard is product- and process-oriented,
providing a technically precise framework for organisations conducting specific
circularity assessments. In contrast, the UNECE/OECD guidelines take a broader, more
flexible approach, focusing on systemic issues and enabling circular economy
monitoring at regional and national levels.
●​ Treatment of water and energy: The UNECE/OECD framework accounts for water
and energy only in terms of their interactions with the environment: water pollution or
energy-related emissions, for example. However, it does not account for water or
energy consumption per se. The ISO/DIS standard does the opposite: it accounts for
water used in the processes under analysis and energy consumption in energy terms
(i.e. kilowatt hours of electricity rather than tonnes of coal burnt), but does not
explicitly cover their environmental impacts. Nonetheless, the sustainable use of
freshwater and energy remains conceptually relevant to circular economy discussions.
●​ Terminology and measurement: The ISO/DIS standard broadly defines ‘resources’ as
including raw materials, feedstocks, and components. The UNECE/OECD framework,
however, uses more precise statistical classifications, distinguishing between natural
resources, primary and secondary raw materials, and residuals. While both
frameworks align conceptually, their terminology does not fully overlap. ISO prioritises
 integration with other ISO standards for consistency, whereas UNECE/OECD follows
the System of Environmental and Economic Accounts (SEEA) to bridge physical and
monetary statistics. This accounting-based approach is well-suited for macro- and
meso-level analysis but less effective for assessing specific product lifespans, material
compositions, or production processes (for example, secondhand or bio-based
materials).

In spite of these differences, the Circularity Indicator Set lends itself well to integration with both
frameworks in terms of compliance (ISO) and superimposition (UNECE/OECD). The Circularity
Indicator Set takes the same approach as the ISO standard, dividing resources into mutually
exclusive categories: recycled and reused, virgin renewable, and virgin non-renewable materials.
While the ISO standard was designed to apply this logic primarily at the product or organisational
level, the Circularity Indicator Set scales it up for application at the national level, creating
headline indicators in both the input (materials entering the economy) and output (waste and
emissions) side of the system under study. In order to better comply with the ISO standard, we
have introduced a number of other methodological modifications to the Circularity Indicator Set:
these are explored in detail in the text box below.

Modifications to the Circularity Indicator Set made by Circle Economy

1. Differentiating between ‘Recycled/Reused’ and ‘Recyclable/Reusable’ materials: The

ISO/DIS 59020 standard requires that recycling and reuse are measured on both the input and
output side:

Input: Measures the fraction of resources confirmed as recycled content, including pre- and
post-consumer materials but excluding internal industrial reuse. Reuse is strictly defined as
remanufacturing, excluding broader durability-related aspects like repair or refurbishment.

●​ Output: Estimates the fraction of outflow content that was (or is likely to be) recovered
and recycled into secondary materials or reused in production, maintenance, or repair.

From an economy-wide perspective, this distinction allows us to differentiate between waste

collected for recycling and actual secondary materials.15 Waste collected for recycling is
measured at the recycling plant gate, whereas secondary materials are tracked at their market
deployment point. The difference reflects sorting and processing losses, meaning Eurostat’s
assumption that ‘input to recovery plants is an acceptable proxy for output’16 is no longer valid.
These losses must now be explicitly quantified. Distinguishing between reused and reusable
content remains challenging due to a lack of statistical data and an undeveloped methodology.

15
This requires a common definition for ‘recyclable’ materials. ‘Recyclability’ is challenging to define, with technical and
economic factors playing a role.
16
Eurostat. (2018). Circular material use rate – Calculation method. 2018 edition. Manuals and guidelines. Retrieved from:
Eurostat website
 2. Defining and quantifying ‘Sustainably Produced Renewable Content’ and
‘Recirculation—Safe Return to the Biosphere’: The ISO/DIS 59020 standard defines
renewable material as ‘biomass that is replenishable at a rate equal to or greater than the rate
of depletion,’ with bio-based inflows considered circular only if they are sustainably managed.
On the output side, the ‘percent actual recirculation of outflow in the biological cycle’ indicator
measures the fraction of biomass or nutrients safely returned to the biosphere (for example,
via composting or anaerobic digestion). These definitions align with the Ecological Cycling
Potential indicator. While methodologies for systematically assessing the sustainability of
biomass are still evolving, the economy-wide biogenic carbon balance approach by Haas et al.
(2020)17 serves as an initial proxy for estimating renewable biomass inputs and safe biological
recirculation.

3. Aligning with a lifetime perspective on long-term products and materials: Measuring

the relationship between physical stock, durability, and value retention is complex in a circular
economy. The Circularity Indicator Set follows an EW-MFA approach, measuring stock
additions based on mass using a static balance method that does not explicitly model how
long products and embodied materials stay in use (technical lifetime) before becoming waste.
The ‘net stocking rate’ (expressed as a percentage) is treated as a mutually exclusive inflow
indicator. As noted previously, circular economy strategies such as product lifetime extension,
renovation, and sharing can be indirectly observed through the potential stabilisation of in-use
stock growth, as indicated by the Net Additions to Stock indicator. In contrast, the ISO/DIS
59020 standard measures a product or material’s expected useful lifetime based on durability
assessments that consider reliability and lifetime extensions through maintenance, repair, and
refurbishment. This reflects a key difference:

●​ Circularity Indicator Set: Categorises material inflows and outflows by their destination
(for example, stocked, technically cycled, or non cycled).
●​ ISO/DIS 59020: Classifies materials based on content (for example, virgin
non-renewable, recycled), with ‘stocked’ not considered a separate flow type.

To comply with ISO/DIS 59020, the Circularity Indicator Set now includes a new
indicator—‘average lifetime of stock relative to the global average’—alongside the traditional
net stocking rate. This sub-indicator offers a more detailed view of material accumulation,
aligning with UNECE/OECD core indicators.

Some of the Set’s indicators align directly with certain topics of the UNECE/OECD framework: for
example, the Input Technical Cycling rate and Output Technical Cycling rate directly measure the
topics ‘Circularity of material flows’ and ‘Materials diverted from final disposal through recycling
or recovery’, respectively. Others, however, do so less directly. The Input Non-Renewable rate
and Output Non-Renewable Rate, for example, account for the amount of potentially recyclable
materials that are instead disposed of and can be used to measure the topic ‘Materials leaving

17
Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Lauk, C., & Mayer, A. (2020). Spaceship earth's odyssey to a circular
economy-a century long perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 163, 105076.
the economic cycle’. However, they are not suited to capturing the topic ‘Waste generation
(materials ending up as waste)’.

The framework also contains a number of indicators that provide considerably more information
than the one-dimensional Indicator Set’s headline indicators: for example, indicators that
measure intensities (such as energy intensity), trends, and material composition breakdowns.
The broader, multi-faceted coverage of the UNECE/OECD indicators offers more operationality,
context and nuance to their measurement.

However, while some of these core and complementary indicators are not directly represented
by the Indicator Set’s headline indicators, they are necessary to calculate them. For instance, the
Input Technical Cycling rate requires data on ‘Demand-based raw material consumption (RMC)’,
‘National recycling rates’ for both municipal solid waste (MSW) and special waste, and ‘Trade in
waste, secondary materials, secondary raw materials, second-hand goods’. Similarly, the Input
Ecological Cycling Potential rate requires data on the ‘Proportion of materials from renewable
natural stocks in DMC’ as well as ‘Emissions and removals from land use, land-use change, and
forestry’.

This configuration offers an ideal opportunity to superimpose the Circularity Indicator Set’s
headline indicators ‘on top of’ the relevant UNECE/OECD indicators, providing a cohesive
higher-level set of headline indicators with underlying, complementary UNECE/OECD
indicators—among others—to support, enrich and expand upon the headline measurements. In
this setup, the Circularity Indicator Set’s headline indicators serve as a simplified overview, while
the UNECE/OECD indicators provide the detailed data needed to understand trends, variations,
and broader implications. These form the headline and sub-indicators calculated and explored in
Chapter three of the Circularity Gap Report 2025.
Table four lists the Circularity Indicator Set structure and its relationship with key elements of the CES Guidelines for Measuring Circular Economy, Part A: Conceptual
Framework, Indicators and Measurement Framework (theme, topics, tiered structure) and the ISO/DIS 59020 standard (category, content, principle).

1) Material life cycle, value chain → production and consumption

Themes
2) Interactions with the environment → environmental effectiveness

1.1) Material basis of the economy: Production, consumption and accumulation

CES 1.3) Interactions with trade
guidelines

Topics 1.2.1) Circularity of material flows 1.2.2) Management efficiency of materials & waste

2.1) Natural resource implications 2.2) Environmental quality implications

Category Resource Inflows (I) Accumulation Resource Outflows (O)

Virgin Recycling & Recirculat

ISO Content Recycled & Reused
Renewable
Virgin Non-Renewable** Accumulation
Reuse ion
Non-Recovered**
standard

Principle ∑ = 100% ∑ = 100%

Circularity Lag
Headline Circularity (Circular material flows) Circularity Gap (Linear material flows) Circularity Circularity Gap (Linearity)
(Stock build-up)
indicators
(Tier 1) (I)TCr (I)ECPr (I)NRBr (I)NCr (I)NRr NSr (O)TCr (O)ECPr (O)NRBr (O)NCr (O)NRr

- DMC biomass (tonnes) - Total primary - - NAS (tonnes) - Recycling - GHG

CIS - DMC/I (tonnes) - Total waste
Compleme - RMC biomass (tonnes) energy supply (EJ) Self-suffici - Renewable rate emissions31
- RMC/I (tonnes) - LULUCF emissions30 generation
ntary - Reclamation rate of organic - Share of electricity ency by biomass as a - Waste (tonnes)
- Secondary material (tonnes) (tonnes)
substances in final energy raw share of NAS collection - Emissions
indicators consumption/I
- Share of forested land consumption material25 - Growth rate of rate
- Safely treated
to air as
-
18,19,20 (tonnes)21 wastewater flows Controlled/u
- Land protection rate - Share of - Material built-up area - Waste as share of
- Circular Material ncontrolled
(Tier 2) Use Rate (CMUR)
- Water protection rate22 renewable energy import - Average share of DPO
disposal rate
- Water stress level in final energy dependenc lifetimes of asset DPO - Average

18
Units are in % unless otherwise specified.
19
Working list. Where possible and applicable—trends, mix and intensities—are included as per CES guidelines recommendations.
21
Domestic use plus imports minus exports of waste destined to recycling, by-products and reused products.
25
Not reported in the CGR 2025 report because this is only relevant at the national level.
30
Territorial and consumption-based perspectives.
31
Territorial, production- and consumption-based perspectives.
 - Ecological overshoot23 consumption y26 categories - Footprint emission
- Energy efficiency (years)27 index29 intensities of
of asset - Average ‘R’ rates asset
categories24 of asset categories32
(various) categories28
- Fossil fuel
subsidies (€)

Contextual indicators33
(Tier 3)

* Blue = Technical Cycle, Green = Ecological Cycle

** Includes both potentially circular and inherently non-circular materials that are non-renewable and non-recoverable

20
Corresponds to core and complementary CES guidelines indicators. Indicators marked in bold correspond to the CES guidelines’ core indicators (or proxies thereof).
22
Not reported in the CGR 2025.
23
Placeholder for core indicator ‘Natural resource index/depletion ratios’. Not reported in the CGR 2025.
24
Depending on the asset type, energy efficiency can be measured in different ways, for example: primary energy demand in buildings (MJ/km2), fuel efficiency in vehicles (lt/km) or energy
efficiency in appliances (% or energy labels). Not reported in the CGR 2025 due to lack of comprehensive data.
26
Not reported in the CGR 2025 report because this is only relevant at the national level.
27
Placeholder for SO/DIS 59020:2023(E) ‘lifetime ratio’ indicator.
28
‘R’ rates refers to the different types of strategies for loop closing such as renovation, refurbishment, or remanufacturing which apply to different asset types such as buildings,
appliances and equipment, or vehicles. Not reported in the CGR 2025 due to lack of comprehensive data.
29
Production- and consumption- based, according to Eurostat’s approach for the cei_gsr010 indicator. Not included in the CGR 2025 due to scope limitation.
32
Depending on the asset type, emissions can be measured in different ways (for example, kgCO2/MJ, kgCO2/lt). Not included in the CGR 2025 due to scope limitation.
33
Contextual indicators were not explicitly reported in the CGR 25. However, they remain part of the framework.
For further inquiries regarding this document​
please reach out to:

Matthew Fraser
Director

[email protected]

Haarlemmerweg 331,
1051 LH, Amsterdam
[email protected]
 la ri ty Gap Repo
i r c u rt 2
eC 02
5
Th

METHODOLOGY
DOCUMENT

Authors:
Alex Colloricchio & Marijana Novak
May 2025
CONTENTS
CONTENTS​ 1
LIST OF ACRONYMS​ 2
1. INTRODUCTION​ 3
1.1 The need for a global circularity benchmark​ 3
1.2 Purpose and scope of the Circularity Gap Report 2025 methodology​ 3
1.3 Conceptual and statistical foundations​ 3
2. CIRCULARITY INDICATOR SET​ 6
3. CGR MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK​ 12
4. MODULES​ 18
4.1 Module one: Materials​ 20
4.1.1 Description​ 20
4.1.2 Data sources​ 22
4.1.3 Gaps and limitations​ 22
4.2 Module two: Emissions​ 23
4.2.1 Description​ 23
4.2.2 Data sources​ 24
4.2.3 Gaps and limitations​ 24
4.3 Module three: Waste​ 24
4.3.1 Module 3.1: Waste generation and treatment​ 25
4.3.1.1 Description​ 25
4.3.1.2 Data sources​ 29
4.3.1.3 Gaps and limitations​ 31
4.3.2 Module 3.2: Waste trade​ 32
4.3.2.1 Description​ 32
4.3.2.2 Data sources​ 32
4.3.2.3 Gaps and limitations​ 32
4.3.3 Module 3.3: Dissipative uses and losses​ 32
4.3.3.1 Description​ 32
4.3.3.2 Data sources​ 33
4.3.3.3 Gaps and limitations​ 33
4.4 Module four: Balancing items and stock additions​ 34
4.4.1 Description​ 34
4.4.2 Data sources​ 35
4.4.3. Gaps and limitations​ 35
5. THE WAY FORWARD​ 37
5.1 Enhance the conceptual framework​ 37
5.2 Refining the measurement framework​ 38
5.3 Strengthening the Circularity Indicator Set​ 39

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 1

LIST OF ACRONYMS
BIs: Balancing Items

CES: Conference of European Statisticians

CGR: Circularity Gap Report

CIS: Circularity Indicator Set

LRTAP: Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollutants

CN: Combined Nomenclature

DIS: Draft International Standard

DMC: Domestic Material Consumption

DPO: Domestic Processed Output

EW-MFA: Economy-Wide Material Flow Accounting

GAS: Gross Addition to Stocks

GHG: Greenhouse Gases

HS: Harmonised System

ISO: International Standard Organisation

LULUCF: Land Use and Land Use Change from Forestry

MSW: Municipal Solid Waste

NAS: Net Addition to Stocks

OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PTB: Physical Trade Balance

RMC: Raw Material Consumption

RTB: Raw (Materials) Trade Balance

SEEA-CF: System of Environmental-Economic Accounts—Central Framework

SW: Special Waste

UNECE: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

WaW: What a Waste

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 2

 1.​INTRODUCTION
1.1 The need for a global circularity benchmark
The transition to a circular economy is central to addressing resource depletion, environmental
degradation and the general transpassing of planetary boundaries. However, achieving a truly
circular economy requires a systematic, data-driven approach that measures and tracks material
flows and stocks, waste generation and treatment rates at different scales—global, national,
sectoral, and product-level. This document lays out the methodology used for the Circularity Gap
Report (CGR) 2025. It provides a robust framework to measure material circularity, enabling
policymakers, researchers, and businesses to assess progress and identify areas for
improvement.

1.2 Purpose and scope of the Circularity Gap Report 2025

methodology
The CGR 2025 methodology is designed to:

●​ Benchmark material circularity at the global level, with annual updates to track progress
over time;

●​ Provide a standardised Circularity Indicator Set (CIS) that quantifies the scale of material
and waste flows and the rate of their reintegration into technical and ecological cycles;

●​ Ensure methodological alignment with key international frameworks, including the

Conference of European Statisticians (CES) Guidelines for Measuring Circular Economy, Part A:
Conceptual Framework, Indicators and Measurement Framework and the ISO/DIS
59020:2023(E) Circular Economy Standard to allow for comparability and transferability
from the globe to other levels (national or industry or business);

●​ Extend beyond traditional recycling metrics by capturing:

○​ The stock dynamics of materials (long-term material accumulations in
infrastructure and products);
○​ Trade implications, particularly the movement of secondary materials and waste
across borders;
○​ Technical and ecological cycling rates, distinguishing between materials that can
be reintroduced into industrial systems and those that follow natural
biogeochemical cycles.

The CGR 2025 calculations draw from over 100 multilateral and national data sources, along with
expert estimates and modelling techniques for data gap-filling, all of which is built into an
extensive data infrastructure.

1.3 Conceptual and statistical foundations

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 3

The CGR Measurement Framework builds upon established industrial ecology and material flow
accounting principles while expanding their scope to better capture the complexities of modern
material flows.

The methodology integrates several key concepts. It:

1.​ Distinguishes between scale and rate indicators:

○​ Scale indicators measure the absolute magnitude of material flows (for example,
total material extraction, total waste generated).
○​ Rate indicators assess the circular and non-circular performance of an economy,
and are expressed as percentages of the total amount of materials flowing in and
out of that economy (for example, the Circularity Metric, which measures the
share of secondary material consumption out of total material consumption).

2.​ Differentiates between input-side and output-side circularity:

○​ Input-side indicators measure the share of particular materials streams (e.g.,
secondary materials, carbon-neutral biomass) in total processed materials.
○​ Output-side indicators assess how much waste is being effectively reintegrated
into technical or ecological cycles.

3.​ Accounts for technical and ecological cycles:

○​ Technical cycle refers to the processes that products and materials flow through
in order to maintain their highest possible value at all times. It involves finite
materials (with the exception of some biomass entering the technical cycle) that
are not consumed during use and industrial processes such as reuse,
refurbishment, remanufacturing and recycling.
○​ Ecological cycle refers to the processes – such as composting and anaerobic
digestion – that together help to regenerate natural capital. It involves renewable
materials that can decompose and reintegrate into natural cycles - at least
without harming and preferably regenerating - ecosystems.

4.​ Incorporates trade and stock dynamics:

○​ Unlike traditional Economy-Wide Material Flow Accounts (EW-MFA) approaches,
the CGR framework explicitly accounts for international trade in secondary
materials and its implications for national circularity.
○​ It also captures material stock accumulation, recognising that materials used for
long-lived infrastructure and products delay waste generation and affect
circularity rates.

This methodology document is structured as follows:

●​ Section two explores the CIS and defines the core indicators used to measure
circularity, detailing their structure, scope, and alignment with international standards.

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 4

 ●​ Section three explains the CGR Measurement Framework and lays out the data sources,
calculation methodologies, and statistical models underpinning the indicators.

●​ Section four breaks down the CGR Measurement Framework into specific thematic
modules, covering:
○​ Materials (extraction and trade)
○​ Emissions (air, water, and land pollution)
○​ Waste (generation and treatment)
○​ Balancing items and stock additions

●​ Section five explores the way forward, detailing ongoing improvements, data
enhancements, and methodological extensions planned for future iterations of the CGR
Measurement Framework.

The CGR 2025 methodology builds on the latest CGR Methodology for Nations1 and the CGR Latin
America and the Caribbean2 methodology. Throughout this document, we refer to relevant
sections from both of these methodology documents.

1
Circle Economy. (2024). The circularity gap report Nations: Methodology document (v 1.2). Amsterdam: Circle Economy.
Retrieved from: CGRi website
2
Circle Economy. (2023). The circularity gap report Latin America and the Caribbean: Methodology document (v 1.0).
Amsterdam: Circle Economy. Retrieved from: CGRi website

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 5

2. CIRCULARITY INDICATOR SET
The CIS is a system of tiered indicators—scoped out of a multi-thematic conceptual framework
and grounded in a statistical measurement framework—that allows for a biophysical and
economy-wide assessment of a circular economy, including flows-stocks relationships. In its
current implementation, the scope of the CIS is centred on the material life cycle, the economy’s
production and consumption functions, and partly on their interactions with the environment in
terms of natural assets and environmental quality implications.

The CIS’s headline indicators are based on extended EW-MFA principles taken from the work of
Mayer et al. (2018),3 Haas et al. (2020)4 and other prior research.5, 6, 7 The underlying
measurement framework fully integrates waste flows, recycling, and downcycled materials with
traditional EW-MFA statistics. In the CGR model, the approach is further extended to include
indirect flows, the trade of secondary materials, and other elements (see Section three). The CIS
is designed for analysis at the macro-level (national, regional), however, it can also be applied at
the meso- and micro-level by considering lower-tier indicators (or proxies thereof) that can be
more suitable for sector- or product-level analysis. Given the statistical foundations of the
underlying CGR Measurement Framework, the CIS calculation relies as much as possible on
harmonised and regularly updated data, producing comparable results that are suitable for
benchmarking across countries and that support consistent monitoring efforts.

For its headline indicators, the CIS distinguishes between scale indicators—which provide
measures for the overall size of the socioeconomic metabolism—and rate indicators, which
measure technical and ecological cycling relative to input and output flows. Providing
independent measures for flows on both the input and output sides is necessary and insightful
due to the delaying effect that in-use stocks of materials have on output flows. Table one lists the
indicators and their definitions for the input- and output-side.

3
Mayer, A., Haas, W., Wiedenhofer, D., Krausmann, F., Nuss, P., & Blengini, G. A. (2018). Measuring progress towards a
circular economy: A monitoring framework for economy‐wide material loop closing in the EU28. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 23(1), 62–76. doi:10.1111/jiec.12809
4
Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Lauk, C., & Mayer, A. (2020). Spaceship earth's odyssey to a circular
economy-a century long perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 163, 105076.
5
Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., & Heinz, M. (2015). How circular is the global economy?: An assessment of
material flows, waste production, and recycling in the European Union and the World in 2005. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
19(5), 765–777. doi:10.1111/jiec.12244
6
Kovanda, J. (2014). Incorporation of recycling flows into economy-wide material flow accounting and analysis: A case
study for the Czech Republic. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 92, 78–84. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.08.006
7
Nuss, P., G.A. Blengini, W. Haas, A. Mayer, V. Nita, and D. Pennington. (2017). Development of a Sankey diagram of
material flows in the EU economy based on Eurostat data. JRC Technical Reports, EUR 28811 EN. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union. Retrieved from: JRC website

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 6

Table one gives an overview of the system of indicators for monitoring economy-wide loop closing.

INPUT-SIDE OUTPUT-SIDE
DIMENSION
SCALE (TONNES) RATE (%) SCALE (TONNES) RATE (%)

Secondary Materials: Circularity Metric (Input Waste destined for Output Technical Cycling
Materials that have been Technical Cycling rate recycling11 rate (OTCr): The share of
previously used (ITCr)): The share of secondary materials—both
and have been recovered secondary materials recycled and
or prepared for reuse8 including technical downcycled—in total
biomass9—both recycled processed output, which
and downcycled—in total includes all solid, liquid
Circular processed materials10 and gaseous waste12
material
flows Carbon-Neutral Input Ecological Cycling Waste and emissions Output Ecological Cycling
Biomass: Potential rate (IECPr): from Carbon-Neutral Potential rate (OECPr):
The share of primary The share of Biomass (excluding The share of waste and
biomass consumed Carbon-Neutral Biomass ‘technical’ biomass) emissions from
(excluding technical in total processed Carbon-Neutral Biomass in
biomass) of which carbon materials total processed output
content remains
sequestered in the soil

Non-Carbon-Neutral Input Non-Renewable Waste and emissions Output Non-Renewable

Biomass: The share of Biomass rate (INRBr): from Non-Carbon-Neutral Biomass rate (ONRBr):
primary biomass The share of Non Biomass (excluding The share of waste and
consumed (excluding Carbon-Neutral Biomass technical’ biomass) emissions from
technical biomass) of in total processed Non-Carbon-Neutral
which carbon content is materials Biomass in total processed
lost to the atmosphere output

Other Virgin, Input Non-Renewable Waste disposed of Output Non-Renewable

Non-Renewable Flows rate (INRr): The without recovery: Includes Flows rate (ONRr): The
Linear
Materials: Finite share of other Virgin, waste from both share of other Virgin,
material
materials and technical’ Non-Renewable Materials short-lived applications Non-Renewable Materials
flows biomass extracted from in total processed and stocks in total processed output
the environment and materials
destined for disposal
without recovery13

Fossil Fuels used for Input Non-Circular Emissions and waste from Output Non-Circular
energy purposes Flows rate (INCr): The Fossil Fuels used for Flows rate (ONCr): The
share of Fossil Fuels used energy purposes share of Fossil Fuels used
for energy purposes in for energy purposes in
total processed materials total processed output

Stock Net Additions to Stock Net Stocking (NSr): The n.a. n.a.
(NAS): The amount of share of NAS in total
build-up
virgin materials, including processed materials
technical biomass being
added to long-term

8
Although currently accounting only for materials recovered from recycling (secondary raw materials) and by-products,
this category also includes materials in products that have been reused, refurbished, or repaired as well as components
that have been remanufactured.
9
‘Technical biomass’ refers to processed materials of biological origin that are difficult to reintroduce into the biosphere
safely. These can be biological materials in short-lived applications such as paper, wood packaging, textiles, and bioplastic
or long-term applications such as timber used for buildings.
10
Processed materials include all primary and secondary material consumed within a defined geographical scope.
11
Due to data limitations, it is assumed that waste destined for recycling is a good proxy for secondary materials that will
be deployed in the economy within the accounting year, according to Eurostat. In reality, there are time lags and
inefficiencies in the waste management system: this means that the amount of waste available for recycling and the
secondary materials flowing into the economy in the same year are not necessarily the same.
12
Processed output is a synonym for interim output (intout), a term often used in Methodology for Nations. It excludes
oxygen as well as bulk water flows.
13
Includes materials extracted from the environment in the current (throughputs) and past (demolition and discard)
accounting years that will become waste in the current accounting year.

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 7

 material reserves at the
net of their depletions

For more information on the individual indicators, refer to Methodology for Nations (Section 4.1),
with the following notes:

●​ Some names and definitions may differ between the methodology documents for
Nations, Latin America and the Caribbean, and this document. For instance, in this
document the term renewable biomass’ has been replaced with ‘Carbon-Neutral
Biomass.’ In some cases, this is purely a change in terminology with no difference in
meaning. In others, the change in name reflects a change in meaning.

●​ The methodology documents for Nations and Latin America and the Caribbean
distinguish between direct and life-cycle indicators, which are calculated based on either
Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) or Raw Material Consumption (RMC) flows. While
this distinction is important for regional and national analyses, it is not relevant at the
global level, where there is no difference between DMC and RMC. For this reason, the
distinction is not made in this document. However, it is important to note that the
differentiation between direct (DMC-based) and life-cycle (RMC-based) indicators remains
relevant in the broader CGR Measurement Framework and CIS, as the framework is
structured at the national level and global figures are derived from the aggregation of
national results.

●​ Updates were made to the calculation of the IECPr indicator:

○​ The biomass fraction allocated to Gross Additions to Stocks (GAS) was excluded
from the IECPr. This change prevents double counting between IECPr and NSr,
and enables more precise monitoring of biomass entering the technical cycle;
○​ Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) emissions were replaced with
emissions from deforestation in calculations related to the carbon-neutral share
of biomass in the ECPr and NRBr indicators, on both the input and output sides.
This adjustment was made to avoid distorted inclusion of ‘credits,’ particularly
those linked to negative LULUCF emissions embodied in traded biomass
products.

With the increasing number of frameworks and emerging standards for measuring circularity,
the issue of alignment and compatibility becomes relevant. To address this, the CIS was
evaluated against two of the existing works on measuring circularity, namely:

●​ The Conference of European Statisticians Guidelines for Measuring Circular Economy, Part A:
Conceptual Framework, Indicators and Measurement Framework prepared jointly by the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD);

●​ The ISO/DIS 59020:2023(E) Circular economy—Measuring and assessing circularity standard,

by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 8

Areas for improvement and alignment were identified and new features developed, including an
expanded tiered structure to increase the interpretability and operationalisation of the CIS. Table
two summarises key relationships between the CIS and the other two frameworks and illustrates
the new tiered structure with the underlying sub-indicators. For more information and a
comparative analysis of the three frameworks, refer to the white paper accompanying the CGR
2025: A Common Framework to Monitor and Measure Circularity.

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 9

Table two lists the CIS structure and its relationship with key elements of the CES Guidelines for Measuring Circular Economy, Part A: Conceptual Framework, Indicators
and Measurement Framework (theme, topics, tiered structure) and the ISO/DIS 59020 standard (category, content, principle).

1) Material life cycle, value chain → production and consumption

Themes
2) Interactions with the environment → environmental effectiveness

1.1) Material basis of the economy: Production, consumption and accumulation

CES 1.3) Interactions with trade
guidelines

Topics 1.2.1) Circularity of material flows 1.2.2) Management efficiency of materials & waste

2.1) Natural resource implications 2.2) Environmental quality implications

Category Resource Inflows (I) Accumulation Resource Outflows (O)

Virgin Recycling & Recirculat

ISO Content Recycled & Reused
Renewable
Virgin Non-Renewable** Accumulation
Reuse ion
Non-Recovered**
standard

Principle ∑ = 100% ∑ = 100%

Circularity Lag
Headline Circularity (Circular material flows) Circularity Gap (Linear material flows) Circularity Circularity Gap (Linearity)
(Stock build-up)
indicators
(Tier 1) (I)TCr (I)ECPr (I)NRBr (I)NCr (I)NRr NSr (O)TCr (O)ECPr (O)NRBr (O)NCr (O)NRr

- DMC biomass (tonnes) - Total primary - - NAS (tonnes) - Recycling - GHG

CIS - DMC/I (tonnes) - Total waste
Compleme - RMC biomass (tonnes) energy supply (EJ) Self-suffici - Renewable rate emissions27
- RMC/I (tonnes) - LULUCF emissions26 generation
ntary - Reclamation rate of organic - Share of electricity ency by biomass as a - Waste (tonnes)
- Secondary material (tonnes) (tonnes)
substances in final energy raw share of NAS collection - Emissions
indicators consumption/I
- Share of forested land consumption material21 - Growth rate of rate
- Safely treated
to air as
-
14,15,16 (tonnes)17 wastewater flows Controlled/u
- Land protection rate - Share of - Material built-up area - Waste as share of
- Circular Material ncontrolled
Tier 2) Use Rate (CMUR)
- Water protection rate18 renewable energy import - Average share of DPO
disposal rate
- Water stress level in final energy dependenc lifetimes of asset DPO - Average

14
Units are in % unless otherwise specified.
15
Working list. Where possible and applicable—trends, mix and intensities—are included as per CES guidelines recommendations.
17
Domestic use plus imports minus exports of waste destined to recycling, by-products and reused products.
21
Not reported in the CGR 2025 report because this is only relevant at the national level.
26
Territorial and consumption-based perspectives.
27
Territorial, production- and consumption-based perspectives.

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 10

 - Ecological overshoot19 consumption y22 categories - Footprint emission
- Energy efficiency (years)23 index25 intensities of
of asset - Average ‘R’ rates asset
categories20 of asset categories28
(various) categories24
- Fossil fuel
subsidies (€)

Contextual indicators29
(Tier 3)-

* Blue = Technical Cycle, Green = Ecological Cycle

** Includes both potentially circular and inherently non-circular materials that are non-renewable and non-recoverable

16
Corresponds to core and complementary CES guidelines indicators. Indicators marked in bold correspond to the CES guidelines’ core indicators (or proxies thereof).
18
Not reported in the CGR 2025.
19
Placeholder for core indicator ‘Natural resource index/depletion ratios’. Not reported in the CGR 2025.
20
Depending on the asset type, energy efficiency can be measured in different ways, for example: primary energy demand in buildings (MJ/km2), fuel efficiency in vehicles (lt/km) or energy
efficiency in appliances (% or energy labels). Not reported in the CGR 2025 due to lack of comprehensive data.
22
Not reported in the CGR 2025 report because this is only relevant at the national level.
23
Placeholder for SO/DIS 59020:2023(E) ‘lifetime ratio’ indicator.
24
‘R’ rates refers to the different types of strategies for loop closing such as renovation, refurbishment, or remanufacturing which apply to different asset types such as buildings,
appliances and equipment, or vehicles. Not reported in the CGR 2025 due to lack of comprehensive data.
25
Production- and consumption- based, according to Eurostat’s approach for the cei_gsr010 indicator. Not included in the CGR 2025 due to scope limitation.
28
Depending on the asset type, emissions can be measured in different ways (for example, kgCO2/MJ, kgCO2/lt). Not included in the CGR 2025 due to scope limitation.
29
Contextual indicators were not explicitly reported in the CGR 25. However, they remain part of the framework.

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 11

3. CGR MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
Grounded in the Common Framework of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounts
(SEEA-CF) and its EW-MFA subsystem, the CGR Measurement Framework builds upon leading
academic work in the field of industrial ecology by extending the scope of traditional EW-MFA
and providing a more comprehensive measure of the scale and circularity of total material and
waste flows and their technical and ecological loop closing. For a more detailed description of
the differences between the traditional and extended EW-MFA approach refer to the
Economy-Wide Material Flow Accounting section in Annex A of the Methodology for Nations.

Consistent with the SEEA-CF, the CGR Measurement Framework’s conceptual foundation sees the
socioeconomic system as being inside the environment, with flows between and within the two.
While the scope of this analysis is global, the framework is set up at the national level to capture
trade implications: that is, flows between a domestic economy and environment and other
economies and the non-domestic environment. This is an important layer to be considered, for
example, when calculating footprints and related indicators at the national level. The CGR
Measurement Framework introduces several key distinctions that enhance its analytical
capabilities:

●​ Distinction between rate and scale indicators: Rate indicators at the input side
measure the share of secondary (denoted with light blue in Figure one) and ecologically
cycled (light green) materials in processed materials (defined as primary and secondary
material inputs), and at the output side the share of technically (light blue) and
ecologically (light green) cycled materials in interim outputs (defined as all waste and
emissions before recovery and recycling or discharge to the environment). The rate
indicators measure the circularity performance—from 0% in a linear economy with
neither technical nor ecological cycling—to 100% in a (thermodynamically unfeasible)
perfect circular economy, where all processed materials are cycled without losses in
loops;

●​ Distinction between technical and ecological cycling rates: Both rates are derived
from the same underlying system definition and relate the respective cycled flows to the
same reference flow (i.e., to processed materials on the input side and processed
outputs on the output side). They are, therefore, consistent, additive, mutually exclusive
and applicable across scales. Technical cycling refers to the flow of re- and down-cyclable
end-of-life waste (output side) handled by waste management and reintroduced into the
market in the form of secondary materials (input side). It also includes by-products that
are reused before becoming waste. Ecological cycling refers to the flow of renewable
biomass—or in our case carbon-neutral biomass—and the resulting outflows to the
environment, which re-enter global biogeochemical cycles. Indicators related to these
flows are shown in light green in Figure one;

●​ Distinction between natural and anthropogenic flows: Natural flows are resources
(such as raw materials extracted on the input side) or residuals (such as emissions and
waste discharged on the output side) that originate from or are destined to the
environment. It is important to note the difference between natural (dark green in Figure

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 12

 one) and biological (light green) flows. Natural flows can comprise both biological and
potentially renewable materials (light green) and inert non-renewable ones. On the other
hand, anthropogenic flows (grey and light blue) are of mixed composition that originate
from or are destined to other socioeconomic systems. While natural flows contain only
resources, anthropogenic flows can also contain man-made artefacts such as
manufactured and semi-manufactured products. This distinction is particularly relevant
in the context of trade and the calculation of upstream requirements (or raw material
equivalents) in material footprinting;

●​ Distinction between flows and socioeconomic stocks: Activities of the socioeconomic

system are fed by flows of materials from the natural environment, which are then
processed by industries, and are either accumulated in physical stocks (additions to the
stock of fixed assets) or transformed and released back to the natural environment as
residuals. Materials stockpiled in buildings, infrastructure, and durable goods in the
economy (long-term materials), as well as old materials that are removed from stock as
buildings are demolished and durable goods disposed of (demolition and discard), are
captured by the NAS indicator (dark blue). NAS measures the physical growth of the
economy and exposes the time lag between material consumption and waste
generation, which is key to addressing circularity through strategies aimed at extending
product lifetimes such as renovation, repair, refurbishment, remanufacturing, and
sharing. In our framework, these strategies would result in an increase of the service
lifetime of in-use stocks and potentially a stabilisation of in-use stock growth, as indicated
by NAS. Thus, even though we don’t have data on the prevalence of these strategies,
their effects can be observed through this indicator, especially in combination with
supporting lower-tier indicators.

Figure one shows the structure of the CGR Measurement Framework and its link with the CIS
headline indicators. The colour coding highlights the relationship between some variables of the
framework, the CIS indicators and the key distinctions mentioned above.

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 13

Figure one pictures a simplified extended EW-MFA framework based on Mayer et al. (2018). This framework
applies to individual materials (for example, domestic extraction of corn or iron) to aggregated material
categories (for example, processed materials (PM) of biomass, fossil energy carriers) to the total material level (for
example, total domestic extraction).

Notes: Full lines/boxes = ‘direct’ material flows/indicators; Dotted lines/boxes = ’embodied’ material flows/indicators;
Dashed lines/boxes = system boundaries; I = Input; O = Output; TC = Technical Cycling (materials cycled within the
socioeconomic system); EC = Ecological Cycling (material cycled within the environmental system); NR = Non-Renewable
(potentially circular inert materials, such as metals and minerals), NRB = Non-Renewable Biomass (non-carbon neutral
biomass); NC = Non-Circular (materials that are inherently non-circular, such as fossil fuels); NS = Net Stocking; DE =
Domestic Extraction; IMP = Imports; EXP = Exports; RME = Raw Material Equivalents; SM = Secondary Materials; R/DMC =
Raw/Domestic Material Consumption; DPO = Domestic Processed Output; NAS = Net Additions to Stocks; BI = Balancing
Items.

*DMC/RMC exclude flows of Unused Domestic Extraction, EoL waste includes streams from Unused Domestic Extraction
**For simplicity, SMimp and SMexp are assumed to include waste for recycling (RCV_R), by-products (BP) and reused
products (RP).

Table three shows the additional variables that are calculated/available through using the
extended MFA approach versus the traditional approach. While figures from the extended
approach are those that are published, results from the traditional approach are still extremely
important for benchmarking, sanity checking and reconciliation (see Section five) purposes. Note:

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 14

greyed out cells means that the variable is not included in the approach, empty cells means that
the variable is input data with no calculation needed.

Table three summarises traditional and extended MFA variables with descriptions and formulas.

LABEL CODE DESCRIPTION TRADITIONAL EXTENDED

Extraction of raw materials from the

Domestic extraction 𝐷𝐸 domestic environment

Imports of raw materials,

Physical imports 𝐼𝑀𝑃 semi-finished and finished products

Indirect flows or upstream raw

Raw material
𝑅𝑀𝐸_𝐼𝑀𝑃 material requirements related to
equivalents of imports imports

Exports of raw materials,

Physical exports 𝐸𝑋𝑃 semi-manufactured and manufactured
products

Indirect flows or upstream raw

Raw material
𝑅𝑀𝐸_𝐸𝑋𝑃 material requirements related to
equivalents of exports exports

Domestic material Primary material inputs into an

𝐷𝑀𝐼 𝐷𝐸 + 𝐼𝑀𝑃 𝐷𝐸 + 𝐼𝑀𝑃
input economy

Primary inputs into an economy

Raw material input 𝑅𝑀𝐼 expressed in raw material equivalents
𝐷𝐸 + 𝑅𝑀𝐸_𝐼𝑀𝑃 𝐷𝐸 + 𝑅𝑀𝐸_𝐼𝑀𝑃

Domestic material Primary material or apparent

𝐷𝑀𝐶 𝐷𝑀𝐼 − 𝐸𝑋𝑃 𝐷𝑀𝐼 − 𝐸𝑋𝑃
consumption consumption of an economy

Raw material Primary consumption of an economy

𝑅𝑀𝐶 𝑅𝑀𝐼 − 𝑅𝑀𝐸_𝐸𝑋𝑃 𝑅𝑀𝐼 − 𝑅𝑀𝐸_𝐸𝑋𝑃
consumption expressed in raw material equivalents

Domestic (excluding exports) and

𝑅𝐶𝑉_𝑅_𝐵𝑑𝑜𝑚 +
imported waste recycled in domestic
Recycled waste for 𝑅𝐶𝑉_𝑅_𝐵𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑅𝐶𝑉_𝑅_𝐵𝑖𝑚𝑝 −​
recovery plants. Does not include
domestic consumption waste from unused extraction. 𝑅𝐶𝑉_𝑅_𝐵𝑒𝑥𝑝
Recycling includes backfilling.

Domestic (excluding exports)

By-products for 𝐵𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝐵𝑃𝑑𝑜𝑚 + 𝐵𝑃𝑖𝑚𝑝 −
and imported by-products for
domestic consumption domestic consumption
𝐵𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑝

Domestic (excluding exports) and

Reused products for 𝑅𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝑅𝑃𝑑𝑜𝑚 + 𝑅𝑃𝑖𝑚𝑝 −
imported reused products for
domestic consumption domestic consumption
𝑅𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑝

Secondary material Secondary material consumption of an 𝑅𝐶𝑉_𝑅_𝐵𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠 +

𝑆𝑀𝐼𝑐
inputs consumed economy 𝐵𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠 + 𝑅𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠

Primary and secondary material

Processed materials 𝑃𝑀 consumption of an economy
𝐷𝑀𝐶 + 𝑆𝑀𝐼𝑐

Primary and secondary material

Processed raw consumption of an economy where
𝑃𝑅𝑀 𝑅𝑀𝐶 + 𝑆𝑀𝐼𝑐
materials primary material consumption only is
expressed in raw material

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 15

 equivalents30

Fraction of 𝑃𝑀 that is used to provide

energy. Comprises not only technical
Energy use 𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑒 energy but also feed for livestock and Calculated based
food for humans. on coefficients
from material
Fraction of 𝑃𝑀 that is used for material flow databases,
purposes. Comprises all metals and Mayer et al.
Material use 𝑚𝑈𝑠𝑒 non metallic minerals, fractions of (2018), FAOSTAT
biomass and fossil energy carriers. food31 and
UNSTAT energy
Long-lived materials used to build up balances32
Gross additions to
𝐺𝐴𝑆 in-use stocks of materials (lifespan of
stock over one year)

Solid waste from the combustion of

fuels and human and livestock
Reported waste from excrement at the same water content
𝑊_𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑒
energetic use of biomass intake (i.e. excluding water
uptake by humans and livestock) as Calculated from
reported in official statistics waste statistics
and Mayer et al.
Solid waste from discarded stocks (2018)
(lifespan over one year), short-lived
Reported waste from
𝑊_𝑚𝑈𝑠𝑒 products (lifespan less than one year)
material use and processing and manufacturing
waste

Crops residues for feed and

Short-lived material Based on Mayer
𝐶𝑟𝑝 deliberative dissipative uses
use of crop residues (fertilisers)
et al. (2018)

Solid waste from discarded in-use

𝑊_𝑚𝑈𝑠𝑒 −
Demolition and stocks. Comprises construction and
𝐷&𝐷 (𝑚𝑈𝑠𝑒 − 𝐺𝐴𝑆 −
discard demolition waste but also all other
− 𝐶𝑟𝑝)
discarded long-living products

Total end-of-life waste comprising all

Reported end-of-life 𝐸𝑜𝐿𝑟 solid waste from 𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑒 and 𝑚𝑈𝑠𝑒,
𝑊_𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑒 + 𝑊_𝑚𝑈𝑠𝑒
waste including throughput materials
reported in waste statistics

Calculated based
Excrement generated from food and on material flow
Unreported waste
𝑊𝑢_𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑒 feed intake not fully reported in waste statistics and
from energy use statistics Mayer et al.
(2018)

Included but no
Included but no
Extractive waste 𝐸𝑥𝑡 Waste rock from domestic mining
explicitly quantified
explicitly
quantified

Waste from material uses not fully

reported in waste statistics. This can
Unreported waste
𝑊𝑢_𝑚𝑈𝑠𝑒 include country-specific under- or 𝐶𝑟𝑝 + 𝐸𝑥𝑡 + 𝑊𝑢
from material use mis-reported waste fractions required
for mass balancing (𝑊𝑢)

Unreported end-of-life 𝐸𝑜𝐿𝑢 Total waste not reported in waste 𝑊𝑢_𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑒 +

waste statistics 𝑊𝑢_𝑚𝑈𝑠𝑒

30
Methodological issues related to the estimation of secondary materials in raw material equivalents can be found in this
Technical Note.
31
United Nations Statistics Division. (2022). Energy balances. Retrieved from: UN Stats website
32
FAO. (2025). Food balance sheets and supply utilization accounts resource handbook 2025. FAO Statistical Development
Series, No. 20. Rome. doi:10.4060/cd4472en

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 16

 Total end-of-life waste 𝐸𝑜𝐿𝑡 Total reported and unreported waste 𝐸𝑜𝐿𝑟 + 𝐸𝑜𝐿𝑢

Domestic processed All gaseous outputs including vapour

from combustion and human and 𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑒 − 𝑊_𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑒 −
output from energy 𝐷𝑃𝑂𝑒
animal respiration excluding oxygen 𝑊𝑢_𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑒
(emissions) input from air

All end-of-life waste excluding

materials recovered for re- and
downcycling. All liquid and solid
Domestic processed 𝐷𝑃𝑂𝑤 outputs including moisture content as 𝐸𝑜𝐿𝑡 − 𝑅𝐶𝑉_𝑅_𝐵𝑑𝑜𝑚
output from materials included in extracted material but
excluding extra added water ( for
example, during industrial processes
or drinking water)

Domestic processed Total waste and emissions released to 𝐷𝑃𝑂𝑒 + 𝐷𝑃𝑂𝑤

𝐷𝑃𝑂
output the environment

Total waste and emissions after the

Interim outputs 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑂𝑢𝑡 use phase
𝐸𝑜𝐿𝑡 + 𝐷𝑃𝑂𝑒

Balancing items 𝐵𝐼𝑖𝑛 Mostly oxygen demand for

input-side combustion and respiration processes
All variables are
pre-calculated at
Mostly water vapour generated from the net of the
Balancing items 𝐵𝐼𝑜𝑢𝑡 combustion processes, gases from balancing items
output-side respiration and evaporated water from
biomass products

Measure of the physical growth of the

economy, i.e. the quantity
(weight) of new construction materials
accumulating 𝐷𝑀𝐶 + 𝐵𝐼𝑖𝑛 −
Net additions to stock 𝑁𝐴𝑆 in buildings, infrastructure and 𝐵𝐼𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝐷𝑃𝑂
𝐺𝐴𝑆 − 𝐷&𝐷

materials incorporated
in durable goods (lifespan over one
year)

Technically not part of the EW-MFA

framework as this is an
Emissions from environment-to-environment flow. Based on Singh et
𝐷𝑒𝑓 al. (2024)33
deforestation Included in the extended approach for
calculations related to the biological
cycle

For an extensive description of the CGR Measurement Framework, refer to the Annex A in
Methodology for Nations. Note that due to limitations related to data and practical
implementation, an integral application of the Methodology for Nations was not possible for the
global context of the CGR 2025. These differences are formulated as methodological limitations
and are listed in Section five.

33
Singh, C., Persson, U. M., Croft, S., Kastner, T., & West, C. D. (2024). Commodity-driven deforestation, associated carbon
emissions and trade 2001-2022 (2.0) [Data set]. Zenodo. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10633818

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 17

4. MODULES
The implementation of the CGR Measurement Framework is divided into four modules and
operationalised through a proprietary python package called the CGR Engine.34 Table four
summarises the structure of the CGR Engine and the correspondence between the python
modules and the EW-MFA modules as presented in the IRP’s Global Manual on EW-MFA.35

Table four outlines correspondence between the python modules and the EW-MFA modules as presented in the
IRP’s Global Manual on EW-MFA.

EW-MFA MANUAL CGR ENGINE NOTES

Module one: Domestic material

extraction (DE), direct physical
imports (IMP) and exports (EXP) RME_IMP, RME_EXP and RMC are imported in the engine from
CE’s Weavebase model36 (see section Environmentally Extended
Module 1: Materials Multi-Regional Input-Output Analysis—Weavebase model in
Module two: Raw material Annex A of the Methodology for Nations document)
equivalents of trade (RME_IMP,
RME_EXP) and material
footprint (RMC)

Emission data is imported from Circle Economy’s Weavebase

Module 2: Emissions
model

Module Waste generation and treatment draws from a variety of

3.1:Waste databases and estimation methods
generation and
Module three: Material treatment
outflows
Module 3:
Module 3.2: Trade in waste and secondary materials is estimated from
Waste
Waste trade international bilateral trade data

Other outputs module includes non-exhaustive estimations of

Module 3.3:
dissipative uses emissions to water and dissipative losses are
Other outputs
currently not included)

For the traditional EW-MFA approach, balancing items and NAS

are calculated according to the IRP’s and Eurostat’s approaches
Module four: Material balance Module 4: Balancing items and
and stock accounts stock additions For the extended EW-MFA approach, balancing items are
intrinsically included and NAS is calculated through a number of
variables pulled from all the other modules

Module five: Unused extraction - Currently, there is no module dedicated to unused extraction.
Flows related to this are typically excluded in datasets related to
Module one, but included in those related to Module three due
to different systems boundaries in data collection. This creates
an ‘harmonisation issue’ between datasets (see Section five)

Module six: Material flow - Currently, this is out of the scope of the CGR Measurement
accounts by industry Framework.

34
Circle Economy (2025). CGR Engine - technical documentation. Retrieved from: Circle Economy website
35
UNEP (2021). The use of natural resources in the economy: A Global Manual on Economy Wide Material Flow
Accounting. Nairobi, Kenya
36
Circle Economy (2025). Weavebase - technical documentation. Retrieved from: Circle Economy website

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 18

In reference to the above, Table five gives a summary of main data sources per module and per
indicator. In Table five, the ‘Emissions module’ and ‘Other outputs submodule’ are not included
because the related flows are estimated through mass balancing in the extended approach
computations. Nevertheless, these modules are a key part of the CGR Engine computations
related to the traditional approach.

Table five summarises the main data and sources used in Circle Economy’s model for the extended EW-MFA
approach classified through RAG (red, amber, green) status.

Reliable data that is up-to-date: Annually updated territorial data

Potential inaccuracies: Scaled, interpolated, nowcasted or otherwise estimated data

Likely inaccuracies: All other data (such as proxies)

Module (CGR RAG

Label Code Source
Engine) status

Domestic extraction 𝐷𝐸

UNEP IRP Global Material Flows Database, Trade

Physical imports 𝐼𝑀𝑃 Common Compilation Categories (TCCC) research bundle
August 2024, Eurostat env_ac_mfa37

Module 1: Physical exports 𝐸𝑋𝑃

Materials
Raw material
𝑅𝑀𝐸_𝐼𝑀𝑃 𝐷_𝑖𝑚𝑝 extracted from Weavebase database
equivalents of imports

Raw material
𝑅𝑀𝐸_𝐸𝑋𝑃 𝐷_𝑒𝑥𝑝 extracted from Weavebase database
equivalents of exports

𝑅𝐶𝑉_𝑅_𝐵𝑖𝑚𝑝: Estimated from BACI: International Trade

Database at the Product-Level38
Imported secondary 𝑆𝑀𝑖𝑚𝑝 𝐵𝑃𝑖𝑚𝑝: Estimated from BACI: International Trade Database
materials
at the Product-Level
𝑅𝑃𝑖𝑚𝑝: Not included
Module 3.2: Waste
trade
𝑅𝐶𝑉_𝑅_𝐵𝑒𝑥𝑝: Estimated from BACI: International Trade
Database at the Product-Level
Exported secondary 𝑆𝑀𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝐵𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑝: Estimated from BACI: International Trade Database
materials
at the Product-Level
𝑅𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑝: Not included

𝑅𝐶𝑉_𝑅_𝐵𝑑𝑜𝑚: Estimated from the What-a-Waste (WaW)

Module 3.1: Waste Waste recycled
database,39 Eurostat env_wastrt,40 the OECD and various
generation and (domestic secondary 𝑆𝑀𝑑𝑜𝑚
sources for country-specific bottom-up corrections
treatment materials)
𝐵𝑃𝑑𝑜𝑚: Not included

37
Eurostat. (2024). Material flow accounts (env_ac_mfa). Retrieved from: Eurostat website
38
Gaulier, G. & Zignago, S. (2010). BACI: International trade database at the product-level. The 1994-2007 version. CEPII
Working Paper, N°2010-23. Retrieved from: CEPII website
39
World Bank. (2018). What a waste 2.0: Global database. Retrieved from: World Bank website
40
Eurostat. (2024). Treatment of waste by waste category, hazardousness and waste management operations (Data code:
env_wastrt). Retrieved from: Eurostat website

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 19

 𝑅𝑃𝑑𝑜𝑚: Not included

Energy use 𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑒

Calculated based on TCCC research bundle data, UNSTAT

Material use 𝑚𝑈𝑠𝑒 energy balances,41 and FAOSTAT food balances42 based
on Mayer et al. (2018)
Gross additions to
𝐺𝐴𝑆
stock

Reported waste from All waste recorded in the CGR dataset (excl. 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑛𝑎𝑐𝑐)
𝑊_𝑚𝑈𝑠𝑒
material use
Module four:
Balancing items
and stock Short-lived material
𝐶𝑟𝑝 Estimated based on Mayer et al. (2018)
additions use of crop residues

Extractive waste 𝐸𝑥𝑡 Included but not explicitly estimated

Unreported waste Calculated based on the TCCC research bundle data,

𝑊𝑢_𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑒
from energy use Mayer et al. (2018) and FAOSTAT livestock data43

Unreported waste
𝑊𝑢_𝑚𝑈𝑠𝑒 Estimated based on mass balance
from material use

Reported waste from Not recorded as excluded from the CGR dataset by
- 𝑊_𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑒
energy use design

4.1 Module one: Materials

4.1.1 Description

This module forms the core of a national or regional material flow data set. Figure two highlights
the components of this module in red.

It includes the DE of materials that are further used in economic processes, usually accounted
for at the point when the natural resource becomes commoditized and a price is attached. The
aggregate flow DE covers the annual amount of solid, liquid and gaseous raw materials (except
for water and air) extracted from the natural environment to be used as material factor inputs in
economic processing. The term ‘used’ refers to the acquisition of value within the economic
system and is a very relevant criteria in the definition of system boundaries on the input as much
as on the output side.

41
United Nations Statistics Division. (2022). Energy balances. Retrieved from: UN Stats website
42
FAO. (2025). Food balance sheets and supply utilization accounts resource handbook 2025. FAO Statistical Development
Series, No. 20. Rome. doi:10.4060/cd4472en​
43
FAO. (2024). FAOSTAT: Crops and livestock products. FAOSTAT. [Accessed on 24/11/2022]. Retrieved from: FAO website

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 20

Figure two pictures a simplified extended EW-MFA framework based on Mayer et al. (2018) with elements of
Module one highlighted. Refer to the ‘Note’ following Figure one for a summary of acronyms used in this visual.

At the reporting level (MF1), DE, IMP and EXP consist of the four main resource groups: biomass,
fossil fuels, metal ores and non-metallic minerals. IMP and EXP of goods are measured at the
volumes at which they cross national boundaries and typically contain products at different
stages of processing, including unprocessed raw materials, semi-manufactured products and
finished products. While the aggregation of DE is relatively straightforward, IMP and EXP contain
additional product flows that consist mainly of a type of resource (‘Products mainly from’ [...]), or
even mixed and complex products (‘Other products’), that do need to be re-assigned to the usual
MF1-4 categories to ensure consistent totals. In the context of direct accounts and indicators,
these compounded products can be reallocated to different material flows based on their
relative shares within the resource group (as per the proportioning principle from Mayer et al.
2018). However, this should not result in negative consumption figures due to an overly negative
physical trade balance (PTB). With this data, additional indicators per resource group can be
derived including PTB and DMC.

𝑃𝑇𝐵 = 𝐼𝑀𝑃 – 𝐸𝑋𝑃 and 𝐷𝑀𝐶 = 𝐷𝐸 + 𝑃𝑇𝐵

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 21

Within the CGR Engine,the raw material equivalents of trade (RME_IMP, RME_EXP) and the
material footprint (RMC) are covered by Module one. These indicators take a final demand
perspective of material use by measuring the upstream material requirements to produce direct
imports and exports. RMEs assume a similar system boundary (point of extraction and
commodification) for domestic and traded materials. The raw material trade balance (RTB) is
established by subtracting RME_EXP from RME_IMP. With this information, the material footprint
of consumption (MF) or raw material consumption indicator (RMC) is established. The MF
attributes global material extraction (wherever it occurs and along the whole lifecycle of natural
resources) to final demand in a country where:

𝑀𝐹 = 𝐷𝐸 + 𝑅𝑀𝐸_𝐼𝑀𝑃 – 𝑅𝑀𝐸_𝐸𝑋𝑃 = 𝐷𝐸 + 𝑅𝑇𝐵

For more extensive information on the elements in this module refer to the section Module one:
Domestic material extraction (DE), direct physical imports (IM) and exports (EX) of the CGR Latin
America and the Caribbean methodology document.44

4.1.2 Data sources

DE, IMP and EXP are retrieved from the IRP Global Material Flow database, specifically the TCCC
bundle and Eurostat’s env_ac_mfa datasets for the globe and Europe, respectively. RMC is
retrieved from consumption-based accounts (DE stressor in D_cba extension) calculated through
the Weavebase model (see section Environmentally Extended Multi-Regional Input-Output
Analysis—Weavebase model in Annex A of the Methodology for Nations document).

4.1.3 Gaps and limitations

Due to the high detail in the TCCC data bundles, cases of negative DMC for a detailed TCCC code
are possible. Although most of them are likely related to data errors, these cases are not
corrected because it cannot be guaranteed that the negative value is not related to an actual
large stock outflow.45 There are also cases of mismatches between extracted and exported flows
(for example, Other Bituminous Coal as DE, and Other Sub-Bituminous Coal as EXP). These cases
level themselves out when summed to the MF1-4 totals, or even total DMC and thus neglected.
Reallocation through proportioning is a temporary solution until a better way to assign complex
products to resource groups as well as material/energy use and to stocks versus throughputs is
developed.

44
Note that—while the general information presented is valid and the CGR Latin America and the Caribbean and global
methodologies are highly aligned—country- and project-specific information (such as summary tables) may not be
applicable to the CGR 25. Any new data sources or approaches specified in this document should be considered as final.
45
CSIRO. (2024). Technical annex for global material flows database - 2024 edition. International Resource Panel. Retrieved
from: IRP website

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 22

4.2 Module two: Emissions

4.2.1 Description

Emissions to air are gaseous or particulate materials released to the atmosphere from
production or consumption processes in the economy. Figure three highlights the components
of this module in red.

Figure three illustrates a simplified extended EW-MFA framework based on Mayer et al. (2018) with elements of
Module two highlighted.

In EW-MFA, emissions to air comprise 14 main material categories at the two-digit level including
the main GHGs (the so-called ‘Kyoto basket’46), Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP)
air pollutants47 and other minor emissions (such as particulate matters, persistent organic
pollutants, and heavy metals). Emissions to water include substances and materials released into
natural water systems through human activities, after or without passing wastewater treatment
(such as materials dumped at sea). For more extensive information on the elements in this
module refer to section Module three: Material outflows (Emissions to air (MF.7.1) of the CGR
Latin American and the Caribbean methodology document.

46
Statistics Explained. (n.d.). Glossary: Kyoto basket. Retrieved from: Eurostat website
47
Statistics Explained. (2024). Air pollution statistics - air emissions accounts. Retrieved from: Eurostat website

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 23

4.2.2 Data sources

Emission data is retrieved from the production-based accounts (Emissions stressor in D_pba) in
Weavebase. Such accounts are built using a combination of the state-of-the-art datasets
internationally available (see section Environmentally Extended Multi-Regional Input-Output
Analysis—Weavebase model in Annex A of Methodology for Nations). A specific extension for
emissions from deforestation is added for use in the calculation of the ECPr and NRBr indicators
(see Box five: LULUCF versus deforestation in Annex A of Methodology for Nations).

4.2.3 Gaps and limitations

Due to the lack of comprehensive and up-to-date country-level data on minor GHGs and air
pollutants, the Weavebase model currently includes only three major ones: carbon dioxide
(CO2) (including from biomass combustion), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Due to the
integration of the EDGAR v8.0 database with the Exiobase v3.8.2 and Eora v199.82 extensions,
the resulting extension of Weavebase is an incoherent mix inventory (territory principle) and
account (resident) emission totals which needs further harmonisation. Accounting for only 1%,
emissions to water and dissipative losses represent the smallest category in processed outputs
(Matthews et al., 2000) and are therefore not explicitly accounted for within the CGR
Measurement Framework.

4.3 Module three: Waste

This module consists of three sub-modules:
●​ Waste generation and treatment
●​ Waste trade
●​ Dissipative uses and losses

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 24

Figure four pictures a simplified extended EW-MFA framework based on Mayer et al. (2018) with elements of
Module three highlighted.

4.3.1 Module 3.1: Waste generation and treatment

4.3.1.1 Description

By definition, waste refers to materials that are of no further use to the generator for
production, transformation or consumption. Waste may be generated at different stages of the
supply chain, from extraction to final use, and from both short-lived material uses (most of
municipal solid waste, packaging waste or sludges and ashes from combustion) and long-lived
material uses (construction and demolition waste or discarded vehicles, for example).

In the traditional EW-MFA approach, waste is only accounted for to the extent to which it is
released back to the environment through open dumping, while landfills are considered as a
form of stock addition. Recycled material flows are considered flows within the economy (for
example, of metals, paper and glass) and thus are not considered as outputs (nor inputs).

Conversely, in the extended EW-MFA approach, recycled materials (as well as other ‘internal
flows’ such as by-products and reused products) are included while landfills are considered to be
part of the environment and not a form of stock addition, and are thus included as part of
processed output.

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 25

Waste generated from the treatment of waste, also referred to as secondary waste, is not
accounted for in the context of this framework as it would translate into double counting.

Waste from unused extraction (such as excavated earth, overburden, dredging spoils, etcetera)
and used extraction (such as extractive ore waste, tailings, etcetera) could not be differentiated
due to data limitations. In the application of this methodological framework at the national level,
input-and output-side statistics are harmonised, as described Methodology for Nations. This
harmonisation is not possible at the global level.

Recycled flows, hereafter referred to as secondary materials (SM), refer to materials recovered
through all forms of recycling including downcycling (for example, backfilling). Reused products
and materials including industrial by-products are also considered secondary materials. In this
document, the term ‘recycled flow’ and ‘secondary materials’ are used interchangeably, as a
study carried out by Eurostat48 concluded that the input to recovery plants is an acceptable proxy
for the output from recovery plants. However, it should be noted that there are time lags and
inefficiencies in the waste management system: this means that the amount of waste available
for recycling and the secondary materials flowing into the economy in the same year are not
necessarily the same. The measurement framework was built upon a systems and material
perspective of the economy, and based the assessment as far as possible on statistical data from
national (i.e. statistical offices) and international (i.e. FAOSTAT, IRP) official environmental
reporting systems. While recovered materials were either reported in waste statistics or could be
directly quantified, this was not possible for other circular strategies such as the extension of
product lifetimes, reuse and remanufacturing, or sharing.

Tracing the transformation of materials from their extraction until their end-of-life requires the
integration of EW-MFA and waste statistics. The latter, however, are lacking in many countries
and need to be estimated based on available data. One of the most comprehensive databases
on waste management is the What-a-Waste (WaW) v2.0 database by the World Bank. This was
used as the starting point for the estimation of waste generation, collection and treatment for all
countries in the world. While the main advantage of this database is the wide coverage across
countries and indicators, the completeness and time coverage of the data points can vary greatly
and requires extensive data-gap-filling and extrapolation.

Our step-by-step approach for data manipulation, including interpolation, back- and now-casting
is the following:49

●​ Step one—Primary data collection for bottom-up corrections: This entailed desk
research focused on the largest countries by waste generation (excluding EU countries,
see ‘Data sources’ sections). The database developed for the CGR Latin America and the

48
Eurostat (2018). Circular material use rate: Calculation method. Retrieved from: Eurostat website
49
Source year refers to the latest year for which reported data was available. Target year refers to the baseline year for
which it was decided to estimate the indicator framework based on data availability across all databases employed in the
analysis. The target year for the CGR Latin America and the Caribbean is 2018.

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 26

 Caribbean50 was also included. The data collected covered municipal solid waste (MSW)
and special waste (SW) generation, collection rates and treatment rates at the highest
level of detail and for the most recent year available;

●​ Step two—MSW generation nowcasting: This analysis assumes that MSW generation
grows primarily based on population and affluence. Following the approach used by Kaza
et al. (2018),51 a regression formula based on GDP per capita was used to estimate the
development of MSW generation per capita for each country between the source and
target years. Population figures from the UN’s World Population Prospects52 were then
used to estimate total MSW generation for the target year. If MSW data were available for
the target year, the original data was used;

●​ Step three—SW and collection rates data interpolation: Because a lot of the regions
have missing data for at least one of the SW subtotals, interpolation was required. While
the earlier approach would interpolate within income groups, such a hard cut-off was not
always desirable while also reducing the bin size for low-income regions to a very small
set of candidates. In the improved interpolation approach, spatial distance and
difference (distance) in GDP per capita were used instead. For EU countries, data gaps in
Eurostat’s time series were filled using basic linear interpolation. For edge data, the first
or last known value was used instead. Agricultural waste, entirely made of biomass, is
considered as part of the ecological cycle as it is mainly returned back to the
environment through soil application or burnt in open fires (emissions from biomass
combustion). Because biomass flows on both the input and output side are accounted
for by the ECPr indicators rather then TCr ones, agricultural waste was excluded from the
SW dataset to avoid double counting;

●​ Step four—SW generation nowcasting: This analysis assumes that SW generation

grows primarily based on sectoral gross output. Construction and manufacturing
industry output from the Eora database were matched to the corresponding physical
waste stream, in this case construction and demolition waste (C&DW) and industrial
waste, to calculate SW generation intensities for the source years (various) and multiplied
by the historical gross sectoral output for the target year. If waste data was missing, the
intensity factor is interpolated using the spatial/income interpolation method described
above;

●​ Step five—Treatment rates nowcasting: For each country, treatment rates for a source
year were gathered. Time series of gross output for waste treatment sectors were

50
Circle Economy. (2023). The circularity gap report Latin America and the Caribbean: Methodology document (v 1.0).
Amsterdam: Circle Economy. Retrieved from: CGRi website
51
Kaza, Silpa; Yao, Lisa C.; Bhada-Tata, Perinaz; Van Woerden, Frank. 2018. What a Waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid
waste management to 2050. Urban Development. World Bank. Retrieved from: World Bank website
52
UN World Population Prospect 2019 extracted from File POP/1-1: Total population (both sexes combined) by region,
subregion and country, annually for 1950–2100 (unit: thousands of people).

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 27

 gathered from the Input-Output database Exiobase v3.8.2.53 Based on the source year for
which mass-based waste treatment rates were available, (monetary-based) scaling
factors were calculated as the ratio between gross output of the waste treatment sectors
in the source and target year. Matching tables of WaW treatment types and countries to
Exiobase waste treatment sectors and regions were developed, and the monetary-based
scaling factors were used to scale the mass-based waste treatment rates. For instance, if
the aggregated gross output of all re-processing sectors of a country in Exiobase
increased by 10% between the source and target year (i.e. a scaling factor of 1.1), then
the recycling rate also increased by 10%. After applying the nowcasting factor, the waste
treatment rates were renormalised to sum to 100%. Waste treatment types that do not
have a relevant waste sector proxy were ignored (for example,uncontrolled waste
disposal). Note that this approach assumes full linearity between the monetary gross
output of a waste treatment sector and the physical volume treated by the same. This
assumption was not empirically tested. Furthermore, for many non-OECD countries with
lacking data, treatment rates for MSW were applied to SW fractions under the
assumptions that the two types of waste were treated alike. Finally, within the context of
this framework, rates for anaerobic digestion and composting were not included since
organic waste flows (such as agricultural waste, food waste, etcetera) are accounted for
by the input and output ECPr rather than the input and output TCr;

●​ Step six—Top-down consolidation: Results from the CGR Engine were benchmarked
against those from the MISO v.1 model. Datasets from two publications using the same
input data are used: A time series (1900-2015) of DE, Material use, NAS and DPO by
Kraussman et al. (2018)54 and projections of stock-related variables, i.e. primary and
secondary stock-building materials, end-of-life waste from stocks and final waste after
recycling by Wiedenhofer et al. (2019).55 The two datasets are combined to get a
consistent time series for key variables up to 2021 and the ratio of demolition and
discard (calculated as GAS - NAS) to the DMC of non-metallic minerals estimated. This
ratio is a proxy for the average relationship between the inflow of stock-building
construction materials and the amount of C&DW generated and it is used as a model
constraint for the calibration of C&DW estimates (including that which is destined to
recycling). For each country and year, the ratio between the DMC of non-metallic
minerals and C&DW has to be equal or higher than the global average. This constraint is
not applied to the countries with bottom-up corrections for the amount of C&DW.

The generalised formula for the calculation of waste treated volumes is the following:

53
Stadler, K., Wood, R., Bulavskaya, T., Södersten, C., Simas, M., Schmidt, S., Usubiaga, A., Acosta-Fernández, J., Kuenen, J.,
Bruckner, M., Giljum, S., Lutter, S., Merciai, S., Schmidt, J., Theurl, M., Plutzar, C., Kastner, T., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K., … &
Tukker, A. (2021). EXIOBASE 3 (3.8.1) [Data set]. Zenodo. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4588235
54
Krausmann, F., Lauk, C., Haas, W., & Wiedenhofer, D. (2018). From resource extraction to outflows of wastes and
emissions: The socioeconomic metabolism of the global economy, 1900–2015. Global Environmental Change, 52, 131-140.
55
Wiedenhofer, D., Fishman, T., Lauk, C., Haas, W., & Krausmann, F. (2019). Integrating material stock dynamics into
economy-wide material flow accounting: concepts, modelling, and global application for 1900–2050. Ecological Economics,
156, 121-133.

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 28

 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑡(𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒) = 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑔𝑒𝑛(𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒) * 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙(%) * 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑡(%)

Where the volume of waste treated 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑡(𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒) is the product of the volume of waste

generated 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑔𝑒𝑛(𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒), the average collection rate 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙(%) and the average treatment share

𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑡(%) for a particular waste treatment type. For some countries, the sum of the waste

treatment rates does not add up 100%: the remainder is assumed to be unaccounted waste.

4.3.1.2 Data sources

The WaW database compiles solid waste management data from various sources and
publications for analytical purposes. The database mainly focuses on MSW, which includes
residential, commercial and institutional waste. SW, which encompasses industrial, medical,
hazardous, electronic, and C&DW is also compiled to the extent possible. Actual values rather
than estimates or projections are prioritised, even if it requires the use of older data. The data
reported are predominantly from 2011 to 2017, although overall data span about two decades.
Within a single country, data availability may cut across several years. Furthermore, when a year
range is reported in the original source, the final year of the range is provided in this document’s
data set. Overall, this translates into highly fragmented and heterogeneous data points from a
temporal perspective. Waste collection coverage data are reported according to multiple
definitions: amount of waste collected, number of households served, population served or
geographic area covered. Waste treatment and disposal includes recycling, composting,
anaerobic digestion, incineration, landfilling, open dumping and dumping in marine areas or
waterways. Given the variability of types of landfills used, data were collected for three types of
landfills: sanitary landfills with landfill gas collection systems, controlled landfills that are
engineered but for which landfill gas collection systems do not exist or are unknown, and
uncategorised landfills. In cases where disposal and treatment percentages did not add up to
100% or where a portion of waste is uncollected, the remaining amount was categorised as
waste ‘unaccounted for.’ Waste not accounted for by formal disposal methods, such as landfills
or recycling, was assumed to be dumped. Waste that is disposed of in waterways and that is
managed in low- and middle-income countries in ‘other’ manners was also assumed to be
dumped. Reported collection and treatment rates refer to MSW only.

The OECD data explorer56 57 was used as the main source for up-to-date MSW and hazardous
waste data. Eurostat was used to update EU countries with great accuracy. For SW, waste
generation data was sourced from env_was_gen.58 Waste treatment rates were calculated from
the env_was_trt dataset which grants more control than the env_wasoper dataset over waste
stream to be included. For MSW, the env_wasmun59 dataset was used instead. Both generated

56
OECD. (2025). Municipal waste: generation and treatment. OECD Environment Statistics (Database).
doi:10.1787/data-00601-en
57
OECD. (2025). Waste - Hazardous waste: generation and movements. OECD Environment Statistics (Database)
58
Eurostat. (2024). Generation of waste by waste category, hazardousness and NACE Rev. 2 activity (Data code:
env_wasgen). doi:10.2908/env_wasgen
59
Eurostat. (2025). Municipal waste generation and treatment (Data code: env_wasmun). Retrieved from: Eurostat
website

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 29

waste streams and treatment types were mapped to the high-level WaW categories using custom
mapping tables. Secondary and organic waste fractions (including related treatment types) were
not included in the calculation. Each datapoint in the waste module could be corrected using
bottom-up waste data. For simplicity, only one year is typically collected and the nowcasting logic
is applied, if relevant. This has proven especially important for the industrial and C&D waste
generation and treatment rates, especially for the big economies. Below is the list of sources for
individual countries’ bottom-up data collected during this study:

●​ Australia (AUS): C&D and industrial waste generation and treatment60

●​ Canada (CAN): C&D61 and industrial waste generation and partial treatment62
●​ China (CHN): MSW generation,63 treatment,64 and C&DW generation and treatment
(median of estimates from different sources),65 66 67 industrial waste generation and
treatment68
●​ India (IND): C&DW generation69 and MSW treatment70
●​ Indonesia (IDN): Total waste treatment71
●​ Japan (JPN): C&DW generation72
●​ Russia (RUS): Industrial waste generation73
●​ South Africa (ZAF): C&DW generation74
●​ South Korea (KOR): C&DW and industrial waste generation,75 MSW treatment,76 and SW
treatment77 (K-eco)

60
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020). Waste account, Australia, experimental estimates. Retrieved from: ABS website
61
Government of Canada. (n.d.). Reducing municipal solid waste. Retrieved from: Government of Canada website
62
Statistics Canada. (n.d.). Table 38-10-0032-01 Disposal of waste, by source. doi:10.25318/3810003201-eng
63
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2022). Collection, Transport and Disposal of Consumption_Waste in Cities. Retrieved
from: National Bureau of Statistics China website
64
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2023). China statistical yearbook. China Statistics Press. Retrieved from: National
Bureau of Statistics China website
65
Invest Northern Ireland. (2022). Insights on construction and demolition waste recycling industry report. Retrieved from:
InvestNI website
66
Zheng, L., Wu, H., Zhang, H., Duan, H., Wang, J., Jiang, W., Dong, B., Liu, G., Zuo, J., & Song, Q. (2017). Characterizing the
generation and flows of construction and demolition waste in China. Construction and Building Materials, 136, 405-413.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.055
67
Zhang, N., Zheng, L., Duan, H., Yin, F., Li, J., Niu., Y. (2019). Differences of methods to quantify construction and
demolition waste for less-developed but fast-growing countries: China as a case study. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research, 26, 25513-25524. doi:doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05841-4
68
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2023). China statistical yearbook. China Statistics Press. Retrieved from: National
Bureau of Statistics China website
69
Government of India Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. (2016). Environment ministry notifies
construction and demolition waste management rules for the first time. Retrieved from: Government of India website
70
Central Pollution Control Board Delhi. (2016). Annual report 2020-21 on implementation of solid waste management roles,
2016. Retrieved from: CPCB website
71
SIPSN. (n.d.). Capaian kinerja pengelolaan sampah. Retrieved from: SIPSN website
72
Zhao, Q., Gao, W., Su, Y., Wang, T., & Wang, J. (2023).How can C&D waste recycling do a carbon emission contribution
for construction industry in Japan city? Energy and Buildings, 298, 113538. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113538.
73
Federal State Statistics Service. (n.d.). Для безопасности Ваших данных Росстат перешёл на российские SSL -
сертификаты. Retrieved from: Rosstat website
74
De Villiers, W., Mwongo, M., Babafemi, A. J., & Van Zijl, G. (2024). Quantifying recycled construction and demolition
waste for use in 3D-printed concrete. Recycling, 9(4), 55. doi:10.3390/recycling9040055
75
Statista. (2025). Distribution of waste generated in South Korea in 2023, by type. Retrieved from: Statista website
76
KOSIS. (2021). Waste generation status_household waste. Retrieved from: Statistics Korea website
77
Korea Environment Corporation. (2021). Closer to people and nature. Retrieved from: K-Eco website

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 30

 ●​ Turkey (TUR): Industrial waste generation78
●​ United States (US): C&DW and industrial waste generation,79 industrial waste treatment80

4.3.1.3 Gaps and limitations

Despite best efforts to guarantee the quality and reliability of the figures in the database, they
should be used with great care due to the extensive use of assumptions and the shortcomings
underlying this approach. The main limitations and avenues for future improvement are listed
below:

●​ The choice of gross output—and more generally, monetary data—to extrapolate SW has
many shortcomings: for example, the exclusion of waste generation by the informal
economy and the overestimation of waste generation for geographically small countries
with high GDP. C&DW could be better estimated using a dynamic stock and flow model;

●​ For EU countries, the application of a standard approach to the calculation of volumes of

treated waste treatment rates (i.e. multiplication of waste generation with treatment
rates) results in discrepancies in overall volumes of waste treated between the engine
and env_wastrt. Moreover, for EU countries treatment rates are calculated ‘at the
treatment facility gates’, thus including imported and excluded exported waste, while
waste generated is just that produced within territorial borders (excluding imported and
including exported waste). For non EU countries, this information is not available and
thus this effect remains unknown;

●​ The application of the same collection and treatment rates for MSW and SW could be
improved by the use of specific rates for each type for all countries;

●​ The use of waste treatment sectors’ gross monetary output for the development of
scaling factors could be improved by the selection of a more specific factor such as
investment in waste treatment technologies.

While recovered materials were either reported in waste statistics or could be directly quantified,
this was not possible for other circular strategies such as the extension of product lifetimes,
refurbishment, remanufacturing, or sharing. As already mentioned in the CGR Measurement
Framework, these strategies would result in an increase of the service lifetime of in-use stocks
and potentially a stabilisation of in-use stock growth, as indicated by the NAS. Thus, even though
these strategies are difficult to measure directly, their effects on the size of inflows, additions to
stock, and outflows can be substantial and are observable via the CGR Measurement Framework .

78
Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2023). Atık İstatistikleri, 2022. Retrieved from: Government of Turkey website
79
Estimate based on: Krones, J., Chertow, M., & Li, X. (2020). Making up for lost time (and space): Quantifying
non-hazardous industrial waste generation in the U.S. Environmental Research and Education Foundation. Retrieved
from: EREF website
80
Set as a weighted average between the C&D recycling rate from: US EPA. (n.d.). Construction and demolition debris:
Material-specific data. Retrieved from: EPA website and the MSW recycling rate from: US EPA (n.d.). National overview:
Facts and figures on materials, wastes and recycling. Retrieved from: EPA website

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 31

4.3.2 Module 3.2: Waste trade

4.3.2.1 Description

ITCr represents a country's effort to produce and consume secondary materials (including waste
destined for recycling and by-products) collected in another country and later imported for
domestic deployment. When adjusting the amounts of recycled waste in treatment operations by
imports and exports of secondary materials, the country that uses the secondary material gets
the 'credit' for contributing to the worldwide saving of primary raw materials. This perspective is
closer to the national accounts' logic in which most re-attributions are directed towards final use.

For more extensive information on trade in secondary materials and how this influences the
ITCr, refer to Box three in Methodology for Nations.

4.3.2.2 Data sources

To calculate the amounts of imported and exported waste and by-products, Eurostat has
identified a list of Combined Nomenclature (CN) codes that can be considered as such.81 82 For
application to non-EU countries, Circle Economy has developed a mapping table between the CN
and Harmonised System (HS) classification that replicates this methodology on international
bilateral trade databases such as BACI.83

4.3.2.3 Gaps and limitations

Due to the lack of available statistics, domestic use and trade of reused goods as well as other
types of ‘inner flows’ such on-site recycling is currently poorly or not at all captured in the
analysis. Furthermore, while trade in by-products can be estimated from international trade
databases, the production for domestic use of by-products is missing. At the country-level this
can result in an overly negative consumption of by-products due to the lack of the ‘domestic’
component and, in some cases, overall negative consumption of secondary materials.

4.3.3 Module 3.3: Dissipative uses and losses

4.3.3.1 Description

Some materials—such as manure, fertilisers or sewage sludge—are deliberately dissipated into

the environment because dispersal is an inherent quality of product use or quality and cannot be
avoided.84 The explicit accounting of these flows is only relevant in the context of the traditional
approach while in the extended one they are estimated as a residual item within processed

81
Eurostat. (2022). ANNEX - List of CN-codes used for the calculation of trade in waste. Retrieved from: Eurostat website
82
Eurostat. (2023). ANNEX - List of CN-codes used for the calculation of trade in recyclable raw materials. Retrieved from:
Eurostat website
83
Gaulier, G. & Zignago, S. (2010). BACI: International trade database at the product-level. The 1994-2007 version. CEPII
Working Paper, N°2010-23. Retrieved from: CEPII website
84
Matthews, E., Amann, C., Bringezu, S., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Hüttler, W., Kleijn, R., ... & Weisz, H. (2000). The weight of
nations. Material outflows from industrial economies World Resources Institute, Washington.

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 32

outputs. In the traditional approach, all the subcategories of MF7.4 except for ‘Pesticides’, ‘Seeds’,
‘Salt’ and other thawing materials spread on roads such as grit, and ‘Solvents, laughing gas and
others’ are accounted for.

4.3.3.2 Data sources

A variety of sources were used for the compilation of the dissipative uses:

●​ Organic fertilisers using FAOSTAT QCL livestock data, regionalised volatile solid (VS)
coefficients and manure production coefficients from Annex 10A.2 from the IPCC
Methodology;85

●​ Mineral fertilisers using FAOSTAT RFN data;86

●​ Sewage sludge using UNFCCC data under ’3.D.1.b.ii Sewage Sludge Applied to Soil’
together with conversion factors (Non-Annex I countries were estimated through
interpolation);

●​ Compost using UNFCCC data under ‘5.B.1 Biological treatment of solid

waste—composting’ together with conversion factors (Non-Annex I countries were
estimated based on WaW composting rates applied to MSW).

4.3.3.3 Gaps and limitations

Although some dissipative uses and all dissipative losses were not included, their contribution to
overall processed output is minimal.

85
IPCC. (2006). Chapter 10: Emissions from livestock and manure management. In IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Retrieved from: IPCC website
86
FAO. (2024). FAOSTAT: Food balance sheets (RFN). FAOSTAT. [Accessed on 24/11/2024]. Retrieved from: FAO website

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 33

4.4 Module four: Balancing items and stock additions
Figure five pictures a simplified extended EW-MFA framework based on Mayer et al. (2018) with elements of
Module four highlighted.

4.4.1 Description

Although bulk water and air flows are excluded from EW-MFA, material transformations during
processing may involve water and air exchanges which significantly affect the mass balance.
Balancing items (BIs) are estimations of these flows, which are not part of DE, DPO or NAS,
because they are not included in their definitions. BIs mostly refer to the oxygen demand of
various combustion processes (both technical and biological ones), water vapour from biological
respiration, and from the combustion of fossil fuels containing water and/or other hydrogen
compounds. In the compilation of these flows, only a few quantitatively important processes are
taken into account and the flows are estimated using generalised stoichiometric equations. The
explicit accounting of these flows is only relevant in the context of the traditional approach, while
in the extended approach, inflows and outflows are inherently estimated at the net of the BIs. In
the traditional approach, their inclusion is extremely important for an accurate estimation of
NAS. The inclusion/exclusion of BIs as well as the different approach to the closure of mass
balance and the estimation of NAS are the main distinctions between the traditional and the

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 34

extended EW-MFA approach. This can be best observed by comparing the mass balancing
formulas of the two approaches (see Table three).

𝑁𝐴𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑑 = 𝐷𝑀𝐶 + 𝐵𝐼𝑖𝑛 − 𝐵𝐼𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝐷𝑃𝑂

𝑁𝐴𝑆𝑒𝑥𝑡 = 𝐺𝐴𝑆 − 𝐷&𝐷

𝐺𝐴𝑆 = 𝑃𝑀 * 𝑚𝑈𝑠𝑒_𝑠𝑡𝑘

𝐷&𝐷 = 𝑊_𝑚𝑈𝑠𝑒 − (𝑚𝑈𝑠𝑒 − 𝐺𝐴𝑆 − 𝑊𝑢𝑚𝑈𝑠𝑒)

For more extensive information on the elements in this module refer to section Module four:
Material balance and stock accounts of the CGR Latin America and the Caribbean methodology
document.

4.4.2 Data sources

Due to the different nature of the calculations between the traditional and extended approach,
the data sources are also different. In the traditional approach, BIs are calculated using FAOSTAT
QCL and the UN population prospects datasets for items related to livestock and human
respiration while those related to combustion processes and water content are estimated using
DMC derived from the IRP’s TCCC dataset. NAS is estimated as the residual BI. In the extended
MFA approach, instead, the estimation of GAS and demolition and discard is based on variety of
sources: PM derived from the IRP’s TCCC dataset and secondary materials from Module three:
Waste, material and energy use coefficients based on Mayer et al. (2018), waste composition
shares from Haas et al. (2020), FAOSTAT food balances, and UNSTAT energy balances.

4.4.3. Gaps and limitations

For the traditional approach, only the most important BIs are calculated representing about 90%
of the total (based on EU countries data) for both the input- and output-side.

For the extended approach, even though it measures flow at the net of the BIs, a number of
gaps and limitations should be considered. Although these limitations cut across several
modules, it was decided that they should be grouped here as they all converge into the
estimation of NAS :

●​ An integral application of the extended MFA approach would require the conversion of
metal ores from DE into metal content and extractive waste (tailings). Extractive waste
should then be directly ascribed to interim output while the material use of metals
should be expressed in metal content. Currently, all flows are instead expressed as metal
ores, therefore significantly inflating the size of the metal ores resource group across all
indicators;

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 35

●​ Proxy values from Haas et al. (2020) for the composition of waste flows are applied to all
current waste streams. These shares are based on the composition of the ’discard and
demolition’ flow for the year 2015. Therefore, these compositions do not consider waste
generated by short-lived products and dissipative losses (‘dissipative losses and
processing waste’ in the Haas et al. (2020) model) as this would lead to an overestimation
of the biomass fraction. We make an exception for metal ores, for which ‘dissipative
losses and processing waste’ are included, since extractive waste (tailings) is directly
ascribed to interim outputs and the metals in ’discard and demolition’ are expressed in
metal content while tailings are—in theory—included in the engine’s waste treatment
data;

●​ Waste from energy use largely constitutes animal and food waste, and in a smaller part,
combustion waste and sludges. Since manure, crop-residues and the composted share
of MSW are not included in the waste treatment data from the WaW database (and
bottom-up corrections), in this simplified approach we assume that all waste from the
WaW database (and bottom-up corrections) recorded in the engine originates from
material use.

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 36

5. THE WAY FORWARD
As the CGR Measurement Framework continues to evolve, several key areas require further
development and refinement. These improvements will enhance the comprehensiveness,
accuracy, and applicability of the methodology, ensuring that it remains a reliable tool for
assessing global circularity. The key areas of improvement can be grouped into three categories:
the implementation of the conceptual framework, the measurement framework, and the CIS.

5.1 Enhance the conceptual framework

Implementing the conceptual framework in line with the CES Guidelines: The current CIS
scope primarily focuses on the material dimension of the circular economy, specifically the
aspect of ‘Material life cycles and value chains’. To fully implement the conceptual framework in
line with the CES Guidelines for Measuring Circular Economy, Part A: Conceptual Framework,
Indicators and Measurement Framework, additional dimensions will need to be integrated—such
as environmental impacts, employment, and financial aspects. The expansion will follow a similar
approach to that used for the ‘Material life cycles and value chains’ aspect:

●​ Step 1: Evaluate the indicators proposed in the CES Guidelines for other circular economy
aspects—‘Interactions with the environment’, ‘Responses and actions’, and
‘Socioeconomic opportunities’. This assessment will consider criteria such as relevance
and measurability to select the most appropriate indicators for inclusion in the CIS.
Indicators identified as ‘core’ in the Guidelines will be treated as highly relevant by
default.

●​ Step 2: Identify alternative indicators for areas marked in the CES Guidelines as
‘placeholders’ or where the most relevant indicators are yet to be defined. This includes
incorporating as complementary or substitute indicators, including metrics, such as:

○​ The number of direct and indirect circular jobs, measured using the Circular Job
Analysis approach developed by Circle Economy and UNEP, with an update
currently in development with ILO-WB;87
○​ The amount of investments in circular activities or businesses, as guided by the
International Finance Corporation (IFC)—which assessed the landscape of
sustainable finance and streamlined various existing frameworks into a simplified
guideline for classifying circular investments88—and first measured by Circle
Economy in the Circularity Gap Report Finance.89

87
Muñoz H, M. E., Novak, M., Gil, S., Dufourmont, J., Goodwin Brown, E., Confiado, A., & Nelemans, M. (2022). Tracking a
circular economy transition through jobsCircular Economy Transition Through Jobs: Method development and
application in two citiesDevelopment and Application in Two Cities. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 3, 787076.
88
IFC Harmonised Circular Economy Finance Guidelines, to be published Q4 2025.
89
Circle Economy. (2025). The circularity gap report finance. Retrieved from: CGR website

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 37

 ●​ Step 3: For the selected long-list of ideal indicators, identify data sources and/or
calculation methods. Where no suitable source or method exists, the indicator will be
retained as a reference, and a placeholder will be proposed. This process will be iterative,
leading to the development of:

○​ A long-list of ideal indicators, and

○​ A short-list of suitable indicators for implementation.

●​ Step 4 (Optional): As with the ‘Material life cycles and value chains’ aspect, develop
headline indicators for the new dimensions. This may involve techniques such as
normalisation or weighting to enable comparability and integration across aspects.

Strengthening Tier two and Tier three Indicators: Due to existing data limitations, certain
complementary (Tier two) and contextual (Tier three) indicators are absent or temporarily
replaced with proxies in the CGR 2025. Developing a more systematic approach for integrating
lower-tier indicators will improve the framework’s analytical depth and applicability.

5.2 Refining the measurement framework

Implementing country-level extended MFA: A critical improvement is the full application of
the extended MFA approach at the country level. This requires higher-resolution data to
differentiate waste streams by origin (material versus energy use) and composition. Additionally,
improving the tracking of energy carriers (for example, moving from energy balances to Physical
Energy Flow Accounts) and reconciling traditional and extended MFA results through
optimisation algorithms will enhance accuracy.

Advancing Module three: Waste: Given the complexity and data scarcity in waste tracking, the
waste module remains a priority for improvement. The following aspects require attention:

●​ Quantifying waste from unused domestic extraction: This is essential for harmonising
input- and output-side statistical data collection;

●​ Improving coverage of waste generation and treatment data: Many data-scarce countries
currently assume that MSW treatment rates apply to all solid waste streams, leading to
inaccuracies. Developing bottom-up corrections or systematic estimations will enhance
precision;

●​ Addressing inconsistencies in waste treatment rate calculations: Existing datasets often

record waste treatment rates under different principles, leading to potential
overestimations (such as in EU countries) or underestimations elsewhere. A structured
evaluation and correction process is necessary.

Reducing dependence on model constraints: Gradual refinement of the framework, including

the adoption of the MISO v2 model, will eventually eliminate the need for top-down constraints
that align results with global models.

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 38

Accounting for by-products and reused products: Improved estimation techniques and the
integration of new datasets will allow for more precise accounting of domestic and traded
by-products and reused materials.

5.3 Strengthening the Circularity Indicator Set

Improving representation of waste management processes: The current EW-MFA framework
assumes that materials available for recycling directly translate into secondary materials used in
the market. This simplification ignores sorting and processing losses and does not differentiate
between different end-of-life waste age cohorts. Increasing the level of detail in the waste
management process will significantly improve stock-flow dynamics representation.

Developing criteria for sustainable biomass management: Establishing clear input- and
output-side criteria for defining sustainably managed and regenerative biomass will enhance
measurement accuracy. This will involve identifying relevant datasets (such as certification
schemes) or methodologies (such as Substance Flow Analysis) that support the assessment of
sustainability in biomass use.

Resolving the ‘net extraction abroad (NEA) issue’ in national circularity assessments:
Country-level circularity results can be calculated using either DMC or RMC. While RMC better
reflects a country's material extraction pressure, its application to the CIS is complex due to
unresolved methodological challenges (see section ‘NEA issue’ in Appendix A of Methodology for
Nations). Addressing this remains a key priority.

Circularity Gap Report 2025 Methodology Document | 39

circle-economy.com