Search

The 2018 European bioeconomy strategy sets a new vision for Europe's sustainable development: a transition to regenerative resource usage that embraces circular principles. Similarly, various member states have developed national bioeconomy strategies. To be effective, such strategies require methodologically sound monitoring tools that support the alignment of national and urban policies. Indeed, cities are central to the bioeconomy, mobilizing ever increasing amounts of biogenic materials. To better understand the suitability of national bioeconomy strategies for guiding urban circular bioeconomy transitions, this paper examines the composition, features, and topical coverage of national bioeconomy indicator sets with a threefold analysis: (1) assessment of the integration of circularity principles in the sets and their alignment with existing policy frameworks; (2) appraisal of quality and the fulfillment of the sets' functional purposes; (3) evaluation of the breadth and depth of tackled issues. Of the 27 EU member states, only nine have a dedicated bioeconomy strategy, of which four propose an indicator set. While there is a general lack of sophisticated monitoring, the tools proposed after the publication of the 2018 bioeconomy strategy (Germany and Italy) follow indicator development standards rigorously. They include circularity in their notion of bioeconomy and combine indicators for a comprehensive, substantial, informative and politically relevant analysis. These characteristics strongly improve the potential for alignment and coherence with urban-level bioeconomy monitoring efforts. Although national measuring tools are not intended to cover all urban needs, the findings of this paper give insight into their remaining gaps and highlight improvement pathways for an efficient EU-wide circular bioeconomy transition. [Display omitted] • Most EU national bioeconomy strategies lack sophisticated indicator sets. • National bioeconomy strategies should favor alignment with other policy levels. • Thoroughly developed indicator sets allow targeted answers to environmental change. • Recent strategies follow indicator development standards more rigorously. • Recent indicator sets enable monitoring of urban circular bioeconomy transitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Frugal innovation can help to foster sustainability and address global challenges, like building economic growth, addressing various social needs, and protecting the environment. However, if one wants to measure the sustainability impacts of frugal innovation or enable companies to make empirically informed decisions between frugal and alternative innovation, the question of how to assess these empirical impacts arises. The main objectives of this paper are the identification of approaches and indicators for assessing the sustainability impacts of frugal innovation and the analysis of empirical findings relating to prior assessments. To this end, a systematic literature review was conducted, which identified 15 texts, and a qualitative content analysis was employed to evaluate their contents. From these analyses two main approaches for assessment emerged. First, the assessment based on the triple bottom line or the dimensions of sustainability (ecological, social, and economic). Second, assessment against the Sustainability Development Goals. In the identified texts, the sustainability dimensions are preferred over the Sustainable Development Goals for assessing the sustainability impacts of frugal innovation. From the 15 identified texts, 13 use qualitative indicators and two quantitative (conceptual) indicators. To answer the research question of the paper, a set of 47 qualitative indicators relating to integrated dimensions of sustainability for the assessment of the sustainability impacts of frugal innovation is proposed. In addition, this paper presents new insights relating to the empirical evidence of sustainability impacts of frugal innovation. Approximately 60% of 334 empirical findings from 70 different cases related to the Sustainable Development Goals contribute to the five (socially and economically focused) SDGs 8, 3, 10, 12, and 9. After a transformation to the Triple Bottom Line, these findings contribute predominantly to the economic and social dimensions (in each case 45%), and only slightly to the ecological dimension (the remaining 10%). In turn, 164 empirical results from 77 different cases related to the Triple Bottom Line show an almost similar contribution to all three sustainability dimensions with a small lead of the economic dimension. Nonetheless, in the opinion of the author, these findings confirm other studies, that from an empirical perspective, frugal innovation can be described as inherently socially and economically sustainable and ecological sustainability is mostly not the primary focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the European Commission's main objectives within its Green Deal strategy is to encourage organisations to adopt a circular economy (CE). Although the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) regulation is highlighted as a tool to help firms evaluate, report and improve their advances in this direction, no studies have been found that empirically validate the usefulness of EMAS as a circularity measuring tool. To address this gap, this paper analyses the information reported in the EMAS statements and determines whether it really is useful to be able to measure the level of adoption of the circular model in companies. Content analysis and statistical methods (Kendall rank correlation coefficient and Pearson's Chi-Square Test) are employed to provide empirical evidence from 122 companies. Results show that the information reported in the statements analysed is neither extensive enough nor provided as scalable and comparable quantitative data to be able to consider EMAS as a valid tool to measure and report the progress of companies in the transition towards a more circular model. Outcomes of the study have useful implications for policy makers and companies. Recommendations to regulators centre on establishing specific circular key performance indicators within the EMAS regulation, which would help companies transition towards a CE. Recommendations to managers include using EMAS reporting in a more comprehensive and indicator-focused way, which could help them visualise their current situation more clearly and be able to compare themselves to others more effectively, thus moving towards circularity in a more targeted way. • Using environmental performance reports as a tool to measure circular transformation in industrial companies. • The Environmental Management System as facilitators in the implementation of Circular Economy practices. • Waste recovery, sustainable raw materiales and renewable energy use are the most mentioned practices for companies with Environmental Management System. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cities account for 75% of resource consumption and 80% of CO 2 emissions. With rising urbanization, achieving urban sustainability becomes crucial. The Circular Economy (CE) concept has been proposed to reduce resource consumption, although its link to sustainability remains unclear from theoretical and practical perspectives. This paper provides an in-depth comparative analysis of 57 indicator sets used in academia or practice to measure either CE in urban areas or urban sustainability. Indicators were extracted and categorized according to three conceptual frameworks, namely: the STEEP categories, the Sustainable Development Goals, and inductively-created thematic groups. The similarities among the 57 sets were analyzed to derive clusters. Results show that CE represents a subset of urban sustainability, while offering more indicators to assess specific thematic groups (e.g., waste). In the discussion, the value added by targeting a CE rather than sustainability is questioned, and insights are provided to support actors involved in an urban transition to develop well-informed city targets. The results offer theoretical, practical, and methodological contributions, and aid involved actors, especially those leading urban transition agendas, to unravel the conceptual link between CE and sustainability, specifically at the urban scale. • Focus on how urban sustainability and circular economy are measured. • Indicators categorized according to complementary conceptual frameworks. • Indicator sets are analyzed to obtain and discuss clusters. • Circular Economy lacks novelty of topics covered, compared to urban sustainability. • For some topics, Circular Economy offers more indicators (e.g., about waste). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]