# Toward a generic method to help develop circular economy indicators

Léa van der Werf, Gabriel Colletis, Stéphane Negny, Ludovic Montastruc

► To cite this version:

Léa van der Werf, Gabriel Colletis, Stéphane Negny, Ludovic Montastruc. Toward a generic method to help develop circular economy indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2025, 494, pp.144678. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.144678. hal-05365913

HAL Id: hal-05365913

https://hal.science/hal-05365913v1

Submitted on 14 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Toward a generic method to help develop circular economy indicators

Léa van der Werf<sup>a, *</sup> ID, Gabriel Colletis<sup>b</sup>, Stéphane Negny<sup>a</sup>, et Ludovic Montastruc<sup>a ID</sup>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

## ARTICLE INFO

Handling Editor: Tomas B. Ramos

**Keywords:**

Indicators

Circular economy

Territory

Stakeholders

Decision-support

Sustainability

## ABSTRACT

Defining indicators to guide projects in the transition to the circular economy (CE) is currently a challenge. Indeed, there is neither comprehensive (offering a global representation of the circular economy) and transverse (relevant to several specific cases) indicators, nor a consensual definition of the circular economy. To identify what could indicators about CE represent and how, a database of 379 non-aggregated indicators have been developed, based on the literature. Categories of the database are dimensions of the CE that can be considered, and indicators are example of ways to represent them. A main question is then how to use this database to propose indicators adapted to specific contexts.

According to studies in ecological economics, involving stakeholders in the production of indicators ensures their institutional anchor and pertinence for the specific context. A participatory tool-based method using the database has then developed, based on an existing participatory method (PARDI). Each step of the method is supported by tools, defined through workshops in a multidisciplinary academic project and literature study. The method aims to be generic (scale, context), while the set of indicators produced would be specific. Its capabilities were demonstrated through a project to set up a food processing industry in a specific context.

## 1. Introduction

Projects aiming to contribute to the transition toward a more circular economy (CE) are increasingly numerous. Nonetheless, it is not straightforward if they share a common goal, or even common values. Indeed, there is no consensual definition of the CE, as evidenced by the 221 definitions listed by Kirchherr et al. (2023). According to Baratsas et al. (2022), CE aims to reduce resource consumption and the emission of waste and pollutants. For Harris et al. (2021) this vision of the CE may risk driving “circularity for circularity’s sake”, without real benefits. Consequently, many authors include social, economic and environmental sustainability as objectives for the CE (Kirchherr et al., 2017). But here again, authors have different visions. According to Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013), the aim would be to decouple economic growth from resource consumption. Nonetheless, according to Arnsperger and Bourg (2016), this decoupling is illusory. Instead, the CE would aim to return to the ecological footprint of a single planet (Bourg, 2018). Recirculating resources is one way of achieving this objective.

In the present study it is considered that the transition toward a CE involves a transition between two economic paradigms: the currently dominant one (financiarized), and one targeted, more sustainable. In a

financiarized economy, decisions are driven by financial interests. Mainly short-sighted, they are incompatible with the long-term vision required to improve the sustainability of a system. Pressurized by financial interests, social and economic interests become divergent and are mainly ignored in the decisions, just like nature. In the economic paradigm targeted, decisions are taken with a long-term vision, considering nature, social, economic interests. Moreover, they examine the specific context and the territory involved. Finance becomes a tool that can be mobilized to serve other dimension interests. Economy becomes an organization designed by and for the benefit of society. Social and economic interests are then meeting up, in a socioeconomic dimension. The main question is how to support such transition.

Indicators are useful tools to support decision-making, required to make such transition. They reflect a specific doxa, guiding projects toward a specific objective. Therefore, different indicators are required depending on the definition of the CE adopted and the context. A large number of indicators have then been developed. Based on literature reviews (e.g. (De Pascale et al., 2021; Kristensen and Mosgaard, 2020; Panchal et al., 2021; Saidani et al., 2019)), five main similarities and limits of these indicators are highlighted. (1) Many indicators focus on the circularity of flows (Kristensen and Mosgaard, 2020), with a

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Laboratoire de Génie Chimique, CNRS/INP/UPS, Université de Toulouse, 4 allée Emile Monso, 31432, Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Laboratoire d'Étude et de Recherche sur l'Économie, les Politiques et les Systèmes sociaux, Université de Toulouse, 21 allée de Brienne, 31685, Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: lea.vanderwerf@gmail.com (L. van der Werf).</footnote>
particular focus on recycling (Harris et al., 2021). Flow circularity is then examined as a proxy for environmental impact and sustainability. (2) Sustainability is little considered, even though it is seen as an objective of the CE. When considered, it is mainly limited to CO2 emissions, financial profit and number of jobs. Nonetheless, for economic sustainability for example, Walker et al. (2021) emphasize that profit is a mean and not an end in itself. Other indicators, particularly socio-economic ones, should be included for a more in-depth assessment of economic sustainability. (3) There is a lack of consideration given to rebound effects. Castro et al. (2022) defined rebound effect as "a divergent outcome or effect from the intended benefits caused by a systemic response to efficiency or technological change". Authors enlarged this definition to unexpected responses to changes in other dimensions, such as new economic models (Metic and Pigosso, 2022). It is a major risk when implementing strategies to limit resource consumption. Several authors proposed methods to assess this risk, and Metic and Pigosso (2022) compared them. However, evidence about their validity, even about the magnitude of effects estimated, is missing (Lange et al., 2019). (4) Furthermore, most of indicators are aggregated which introduces a bias and complicates the interpretation of the indicator (Fraser et al., 2006). (5) Finally, a recurring criticism is the lack of transversality of the indicators, in terms of scale and context (e.g. (De Pascale et al., 2021; Harris et al., 2021)).

To sum up, literature shows a lack both of consensual definition of the CE and of indicators complete and transverse. Moreover, indicators supporting a transition to a more CE are required in projects of different scales, in different territories, with different objectives. In this context, the article addresses the following questions: what aspects should indicators represent? how should these aspects be represented? how can indicators be adapted to a specific context?

Studies in ecological economics show that it is not necessarily relevant or possible to use one indicator in multiple contexts (Fraser et al., 2006; Ottaviani et al., 2021). Indeed, stakeholders need to participate to the production of the indicator to perceive them as their own and use it. Their involvement not only ensures the institutional anchoring of the indicator, but also its relevance to the specific context studied (Bauler, 2012). Moreover, it is also a way to co-define which system to aim for and how to get there. This involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making process is relevant with the economic paradigm targeted here, where multiple interests should be considered in the decisions. Several levels of participation can be envisaged, from indicators deduced from interviews with stakeholders, to indicators imposed by experts (Fraser et al., 2006).

Literature about CE mainly presents aggregated indicators, either case-specific, or expected to be generic (De Pascale et al., 2021). Methods and tools to define them were less developed. Moreover, the ones found are either sector specific, not participative (Poponi et al., 2022), and/or propose to select aggregated indicators (Saidani et al., 2019), or to aggregate them (Coluccia et al., 2024). This study proposes an approach with an intermediate level of participation: a tool-based method to guide the development of indicator sets able to support a transition to a more CE. The method and tools are intended to be generic (scales, contexts), while the indicator set will be specific and not aggregated.

The method aggregates and operationalizes concepts and tools from several disciplines. Elements to include were identified through workshops in a multidisciplinary project (e.g. academics in engineering, economy, management, geology), and in the literature. Based on the method PARDI (Étienne, 2013), it is structured in five steps, each one supported by tools. The problem, the system (in terms of revealed territory, including the stakeholders), the indicators and then the risks of rebound effects are defined. A main contribution of the article is the tool supporting the step of indicator definition: a database of indicators classified in a framework, developed from the literature. The categories

of classification are as many aspects that can be considered in a set of indicators relating to the CE, addressing the gaps in the literature previously identified.

In the remainder, the second section presents the two main contributions of the study: the method workflow, and the indicator identification tool. The method aggregates multidisciplinary concepts and tools to support the development of specific indicator sets. The indicator identification tool proposes dimensions of the CE, and example of indicators to represent them. The third section presents an example of application of the method on a project of food production unit. Before to draw conclusion, a discussion is proposed.

## 2. Method to develop indicator sets

### 2.1. Method workflow

The method of indicator set development includes five steps (graphical abstract, Table 1): (1) definition of the objective of the study, (2) system definition, (3) indicators identification, (4) evaluation of the risk of rebound effect, (5) evaluation of the systemic aspect of the assessment. Iterations between these steps may be necessary. For example, indicators can be added to consider actions limiting the risk of rebound effect. Further subsections detail these steps and associated tools.

#### Step 2: System Definition

Once the objective and the eventual scenarios defined, the system examined is framed. CE can be analyzed at several scales. Based on De Oliveira et al. (2021), three scales are considered for productive systems: nano (flow), micro (organism) and meso (organisms network, e.g. value chain). These entities are part of an environment, named macro scale (local environment, e.g. city). Therefore, each system is intrinsically multi-scales. A scale of main interest in the project perspective is selected. It is advisable to include other scales to provide a global assessment (e.g. organisms (micro) and environment (macro) of the value chain).

The territory to consider is also delimited. According to the "proximity school", a territory is revealed by the connections between stakeholders involved in a coordination situation delimited in time and space (Colletis and Rychen, 2004). Therefore, spatial and temporal boundaries, and coordination situation between stakeholders are defined. Stakeholder is "any group or individual who may affect the achievement of organizational objectives or who is affected by the achievement of organizational objectives" (Freeman et al., 2010).

Static maps are proposed to help identify the stakeholders to consider, their position in the project and their coordination situation. Maps should evolve in time, depending on the actions implemented in the project. Fig. 1 maps stakeholders depending on their commitment to the project (organizational engagement) and to the values and principles of CE (societal engagement), based on Girard and Sobczak (2010). Therefore, stakeholders societally and organizationally engaged should take decisions in the project (organizational engagement) consistent with some values and principles of CE (societal engagement). Furthermore, Fig. 2 maps the proximity between stakeholders. It reveals their coordination situation, influenced by their geographic and organized proximity (Bezzon and Levy, 2020). Geographic proximity is related to the distance between them. Organized proximity is related to their capacity to interact (Bezzon and Levy, 2020; Rallet and Torre, 2004). It can be divided into an organizational proximity (proximity of organization, relations, methods) and an institutional one (proximity of culture, value, institutional framework) (Bezzon and Levy, 2020; Boschma, 2004; Colletis and Rychen, 2004).
<table><caption>**Table 1**
Overview of the method and associated tools.</caption><thead><tr><th>Method step</th><th>Detailed questions</th><th>Tools developed</th><th>Expected Result</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1: What is the purpose of the study?</td><td>Why using indicators?<br>What question will the indicators answer?<br>If the aim is to compare scenarios, what are they?</td><td></td><td>Central question of the study<br>(Scenarios to explore)</td></tr><tr><td>2: What is the scope of the study?</td><td>Which scales consider?<br>What are the spatial and temporal limits?<br>Stakeholders: Who ? What proximity and engagement? Who considering or involving in the indicator development?</td><td>Stakeholder maps</td><td>Spatial and temporal limits<br>Scales of interest<br>Relations and position of the stakeholders<br>Stakeholders to consider and involve.</td></tr><tr><td>3: Which indicators to assess:<br>how circular are the flows?</td><td>Which flow circularity are implemented?<br>Which flows are concerned by each strategy?<br>Which flows should be considered in the indicator set?<br>By which indicator ?</td><td>Criticity matrix</td><td>Indicator set</td></tr><tr><td>reciprocal impacts context<br>- object of study?</td><td>What contextual aspects of interest to stakeholders are impacted by or impact the object of study?<br>Which indicator associate to each aspect?<br>Which ones consider?</td><td>Framework scheme<br>Keywords (Appendix C)<br>Template<br>Indicator database (Appendix B)<br>Criticity matrix</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4: What is the risk of rebound effect?</td><td>What factors could cause or amplify a rebound effect?<br>What is their probability of occurrence and the intensity of the potential effect?<br>What factors could limit them? Can they be implemented?<br>Are there any indicators linked to these rebound effects to consider?</td><td>Table (Appendix A)</td><td>Score of the risk of rebound effect</td></tr><tr><td>5: Is the analysis systemic enough?</td><td>What diversity of aspects are considered?</td><td>Table</td><td>Score of the analysis</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Map of the stakeholders depending on their engagement, based on stakeholder theory (Girard and Sobczak, 2010). Applied on the case study detailed in section 3.</figcaption></figure>

### Step 3: Indicator identification

The set of indicators selected should allow to compare the scenarios and answer the problematic. Indicators should (a) not be redundant, (b) allow to discriminate scenarios, (c) cover the scales of the system and the interests of the stakeholders identified in the previous step, and (d) represent the main aspects of the CE. A framework defining these aspects is presented in this section. It is associated with tools to identify the relevant indicators (detailed in Section B as it is a major contribution of this work).

Fig. 3 represents a system in transition toward CE, with a strong sustainability perspective. Generic, it aims to be valid in different

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Map of the proximity to the project leader, i.e. processing unit managers, based on the school of proximity (Boschma, 2004). Applied on the case study detailed in section 3.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Generic diagram of a system in transition toward a more CE.</figcaption></figure>
contexts. In this representation, human societies are part of nature (Ruggerio, 2021). They extract, process, distribute and use natural resources (material and energy flows) to meet their needs. Extraction, processing and distribution require technical means. An economic model regulates all these operations, from extraction to use. It can include a financial market. One part of material and energy flows return to the natural environment as wastes. CE aims at increasing the sustainability of this whole system by different strategies.

Transition toward a CE mobilizes strategies named **R-strategies** in the literature (Potting et al., 2017). Authors listed from 4 to 10 R-strategies (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Potting et al., 2017). Most of the authors consider the same R-strategies, but grouped them more or less (Table 2). For example, Kirchherr et al. (2017) considered repair and refurbish as part of the reuse strategy, while Potting et al. (2017) considered them separately. Here, they were grouped into 5 R-strategies to maintain a level of simplicity enabling an adoption of the framework (Table 2, Fig. 3). As suggested by Valencia et al. (2023), strategies directly linked to flow circularity are differentiated to strategies aiming to rethink elements of the whole system. Rethink strategy includes then *refuse, redesign, regulate* (Potting et al., 2017; Xing et al., 2017). About flow circularity, *Reduce* is related to a reduction of the flows. *Reuse* groups strategies involving the reuse of a flow as it is, *repaired, refurbished* or *remanufactured*. *Recycle* involves the processing of a material to have the same or a lower quality. *Recover* groups the incineration of materials with energy recovery and back to the land of components (composting). *Resilience* is considered more as a possible objective than as a strategy.

Indicators associated to these dimensions, R-strategies, and valid at the scales defined in “Step 2: System Definition” are thus required in the set developed. They are identified with the tools of Section B.

### Step 4: Rebound effect

According to Lange et al. (2019), no indicator assessing rebound effect is robust. A tool to discuss it and grade its risk was developed (appendix A).

The tool lists the main factors initiating or developing the rebound effect of CE, identified by Metic and Pigosso (2022) and Castro et al. (2022). Users grade the probability of occurrence of the factors, and the potential severity of the phenomena induced (e.g. increase of resource consumption). The risk is calculated by multiplying the probability and the severity. Factors limiting the rebound effect were identified by these authors. Users grade the level of implementation of these factors in their system to have a global picture of the risk of rebound effect. Indicators, actions or scenarios could then be revised.

### Step 5: Evaluation of the indicators selected and rebound effect

The set of indicators selected should provide a global vision of the system and of the CE. Fig. 4 evaluates that. Grades are attributed depending on the number of categories of the framework included in the selected indicators. One can then update its indicator set.

#### 2.1.1. Indicator identification tool

In the third step of the method, indicators related to the main aspects of the CE identified in the framework (dimensions and R-strategies) and to the scales of the systems (nano, micro, meso, macro) are required. It is mainly supported by a database of indicators. The database proposes example of indicators, not aiming to be exhaustive. Users can customize indicators depending on their needs. Its construction is first presented, followed by the decision support system proposed to use it.

##### i. Construction of the database of indicators

The database presents 379 non aggregated indicators collected in 48 references (appendix B). The calculation method -when available-, the eventual aggregated indicator from which it was extracted, details about the reference, and the application are specified. 50% of the indicators come from scientific literature, 40% from legislations or reports, and 10% from literature and databases related to the environmental life cycle analysis (eLCA). eLCA is a multicriteria normed method to assess the impact of a system (product, service, company, process) along its life cycle. Aggregated indicators are presented disaggregated in the database (i.e. sub-indicators are presented). References were first chosen to get a global overview of the indicators related to CE available. Indicators related to the rethink strategy and to dimensions nature, social, socio-economy, economy and finance were missing. They were collected in other references, mainly about sustainability or the social contribution in CE. Lack of indicators about the social dimension being widely noted in the literature (De Pascale et al., 2021), a special care was carried to references about that. It is to be noted that some indicators were deduced from characteristics of the CE or the sustainability identified in the literature. They are actually in between indicators and principles, as they present more a notion than a norm (Colletis and Salles, 2013).

Indicators are associated to the dimensions (nature, social, socio-economic, economy, finance, technique, flow) and R-strategies (rethink, reduce, reuse, recycle, recover) identified in the framework, and to the scales of system. A higher level of specification is proposed to ease their identification, and precise the aspects that can be considered in CE projects. Indicators are then also associated to 3 keywords of increasing level of specificity (Fig. 5, detailed in Appendix C). The first keywords associated to the indicators related to the nature dimension is in between the categories of impact of the environmental life cycle assessment (eLCA), and the nine planet boundaries (Richardson et al.,

<table><caption>**Table 2**
R-strategies considered in the literature and in the present paper. “o” explicitly considered. “x” included in another R-strategy.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="5">Literature</th><th>Present article</th></tr><tr><th>4R (Kirchherr et al., 2017)</th><th>6R (Yan and Feng, 2014)</th><th>5R (Wenbo, 2011)</th><th>7R (Xing et al., 2017)</th><th>10R (Potting et al., 2017)</th><th>5R</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Refuse</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>o</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Rethink</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td>o</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce</td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td>o</td></tr><tr><td>Reuse</td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td>o</td></tr><tr><td>Repair</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>o</td><td>x</td><td>o</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Refurbish</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>o</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Remanufacture</td><td>x</td><td>o</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>o</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Repurpose</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>o</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Recycle</td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td>o</td></tr><tr><td>Recover</td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td></td><td>o</td><td>o</td><td>o</td></tr><tr><td>Redesign</td><td>x</td><td>o</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Resilience</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>o</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Regulate</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>o</td><td></td><td>x</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Fig. 4. Evaluation of the set of indicators selected.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Elements considered</th><th colspan="5">Grade</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dimensions (number of)</td><td rowspan="5">1</td><td rowspan="5">all</td><td rowspan="5"></td><td rowspan="5"></td><td rowspan="5"></td></tr><tr><td>R-strategies (number of)</td></tr><tr><td>Aspects of « Rethink » (number of keyword 1)</td></tr><tr><td>Scales (number of)</td></tr><tr><td>Stakeholders' interests (number of and quality)</td></tr><tr><td>Rebound effect (quality of the assessment)</td><td>Not done</td><td>Done carefully</td></tr></tbody></table>

For the social dimension, the first keywords are close to the categories of social life cycle assessment (Benoît Norris et al., 2020) and the dimensions of the social dimension of the CE identified in the literature (Valencia et al., 2023). Furthermore, depending on the economic paradigm, indicators about financial performance can represent economic or financial features. For example, a short-sited return on investment presents financial features, while a long-sighted one presents economic ones. Hence, the category *economy* encompasses indicators either related to a first keyword named “financial performance” (e.g. for return on investment), or “economic performance” (e.g. value added). Finally, all the flow circularity indicators collected are about resources, which is their first keyword.

## ii. Decision Support System to select indicators

Indicators related to the R-strategies about flow circularity are selected separately from the ones related to the Rethink strategy. The 4 R-strategies about flow circularity (reduce, reuse, recycle, recover) are assessed with indicators quantifying the flows in the system. At minimum one indicator should be associated to each R-strategy implemented in the project. The kind of indicator and the flow are selected. Indicators can be a quantity of flow, a proportion or a ratio with an economic value. Indeed, most of the indicators collected take these forms. Proportion is often easier to interpret. Using a quantity can introduce a bias, as a higher amount of matter recycled can be linked to a higher consumption.

It is not possible to quantify the circularity of all the flows. Only the critical ones -high amount and/or high potential impact- are considered. They are identified with Fig. 6. The database can be used to find examples of flows and indicators used in previous studies.

Indicators about the “Rethink” strategy assess if elements of the system are rethought to enable flow circularity and increase the sustainability. They should represent the interests of the stakeholders, at

the scales of interest, and in the relevant aspects of the CE (dimension, first keyword for social and nature dimension). Table 3 guides the selection. There is one column per stakeholder, one line per aspect of the CE, and one color per scale. One indicator in each column, each line and each color would lead to a global vision of the system and the CE. For each stakeholder, in the dimension of interest, one can define indicators in four steps: (i) select the first keywords representing his interests, (ii) in this or these keywords, select the relevant second keywords, (iii) then the relevant third keywords, and (iv) select indicators associated to these keywords in the database, or define a new one, more adapted to the specific context.

As for flow circularity, it is not possible to consider all the interests of the stakeholders. Only the indicators representing a high interest for the stakeholder, and differentiating the scenarios would be selected (Fig. 7). Furthermore, it is advised to complete the present method with an existing environmental sustainability assessment method, such as environmental LCA. Such method is quite difficult to implement and interpret, but presents a real in-depth analysis of environmental impact.

## 3. Application of the method on a case study

The method is applied on a project previously studied by the authors: the implantation of a food processing unit in a peri urban area of Abomey Calavi, Benin. Each step was conducted by the authors out-of-field, based on their knowledge of the context. The unit processes cassava roots and sweet potatoes into flours and starch powder. The context is specific as there is currently no such scale of food unit in this area. It raises many problematics, including around raw material, devices availability, and social impact on the current processor and local population.

### Step 1: Definition of the objective

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. Classification of the indicators. With the scales of the system (nano, micro, meso, macro), the R-strategies (rethink, reduce, reuse, recycle, recover) and dimensions (nature, social, economic, socio-economic, technique, matter and energy flow) of circularity.</figcaption></figure>
The objective is to support the decision-making during the devel-
opment of the unit to ensure its adequation with CE. The scenarios
explore process designs and project management. No participatory
approach could be implemented in this case, thus the analysis is based
on assumptions about stakeholders' interests.

Step 2: Definition of the system

The project is operated by the company owners. It mainly focuses on the processing unit (micro scale) and envisaged in a 10-years horizon. It will involve and impact stakeholders and flows at meso (value chain: farmers, transporters, distributors, equipment manufacturers) and macro scales (civil society -local community, association, citizen-, politics, consumers, artisanal processors and financiers). Elements at the nano scale are also part of decision-making (e.g. raw agricultural and food products).

The degree of engagement of the identified stakeholders is mapped in Fig. 1. The system described is part of a financiarized economy (see Introduction). Indeed, financiers have no societal concerns but are organizationally engaged, as they pressurize the decisions. Stakeholders of the productive system have then mostly financial interests and low societal engagement, and conversely for stakeholders of the environment of the value chain. Nature preservation is defended by militant stakeholders as associations. It clearly shows a divergence between the economic and social sphere.

The proximity between the project leaders and the other stake-
holders is mapped in Fig. 2. Except financiers, all stakeholders have a
high geographical proximity, representative of a local production,
commercialized in a local market. Stakeholders are then more suscep-
tible to share a common culture, and to be organizationally close. There
is still a distribution of the organized proximity, distinguishing two main
groups of stakeholders: actors of the production system (micro, meso)
and those of their environment. Indeed, they have different concerns
and structures. Financier is outside of these groups because it is in
France and interested in the money collected from the flour production.
Having a financial stakeholder closer could facilitate the cooperation.

Crossing these diagrams highlights that most of the militant stake-
holders have a low organized proximity with the project leaders. Some
could be opposed to the project. Moreover, it could be desired that all
stakeholders become “engaged” to develop a sustainable project. Their
proximity and the governance would be revised. Indicators development
process could be a lever, using participatory approach. Indicators
revealing actions to increase theses proximities could be selected.

Step 3a: Identification of indicators of flow circularity

Indicators about flow circularity (reduce, reuse, recycle, recover) at the main scale of interest -micro, processing unit-are defined. Flows are selected with the criticity matrix (Fig. 6). Raw material (cassava, sweet potato) and energy (fuel, electricity) represent the main expenses of the

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6. Matrix of selection of the flows to consider.</figcaption></figure>

unit, and have an important environmental impact. Energy consumption
is mainly due to drying. Wastewater should be transported by trucks to a
specific plant. Part of wastewater could be filtered and reused in the
unit. Moreover, the amount of fresh water used could become prob-
lematic in a perspective of climate change and urban densification.

Indicators assessing the circularity of these flows are presented in Table 8 (Appendix D). They are mainly ratios between flow rates. They assess (i) the *reduction* of utilities (water, energy) and raw materials (cassava, sweet potato); (ii) the *reuse* of water and raw material peels; (iii) the *recycling*-extraction- of starch from wastewater; (iv) the *recovering* of peels in compost. Moreover, as drying is the main energy consumer, an indicator assesses the efficiency of the operation, and another one is dedicated to supply chain transportation activities. Assuming that locally produced flour avoids importation of flour, an indicator about the capacity of production is selected.

Step 3b: Identification of indicators about rethinking elements

Indicators about how elements of the system are thought to improve flow circularity and sustainability are selected with the indicator database and the associated tools. Indicators selected cover all dimensions, scales and represent interests of each stakeholder (Table 3). Only two aspects of nature sustainability (i.e. two first keywords of the nature dimension) have no indicators. Indeed, no novel entities or emissions impacting the stratospheric ozone are emitted a priori. Indicators are listed in Table 9 (Appendix D)

As expected, indicators related to nature are mainly at the micro
scale. Indeed, most of environmental impacts are due to the flows
circulating in the system. Moreover, most of the social and economic
indicators retained for the stakeholders of the processing unit focus on
the micro scale, most of the ones for the value chain stakeholders on the
meso scale, and those for the stakeholders outside the productive system
are mostly at the macro scale. This demonstrates some consistence be-
tween the indicators, scales, and stakeholders selected.

Some indicators are common to several stakeholders, and assessed at several scales (e.g. frequency of consultation), eventually associated to different dimensions (e.g. roads part of technical dimension for transporters, and part of social dimension -quality of life-for the local community). 38 relevant indicators were then identified (Table 5). It can be expected to reduce their number, depending on their use. The criticity matrix could be used to grade them (Fig. 7).

Step 4: Rebound effect

The risk of rebound effect is assessed with the module presented in appendix A. At the scale of the processing unit, the increase of energy efficiency and decrease of matter loss due to process optimization should not lead to a behavior change generating an unexpected flow increase.

Nonetheless, it could lead to a higher demand of roots, and then a modification of agricultural practices, eventually using chemicals and other ways of intensification such as monoculture. This rebound effect could be limited by supporting agricultural practices changes and encouraging those adapted to the nature and the context. Moreover, the unit would be located in urban area, while processing is currently operated close to the field. The treatment or valorization of coproducts could be less easy, as for example peels are traditionally used for animal feeding.

Furthermore, the project could increase the interdependency be-
tween the value chain actors. A too high interdependency may decrease
the resilience of the system, one issue on one stakeholder can impact or
propagate to all the other ones. Moreover, it may limit innovation if their
organized proximity become too high (Boschma, 2004). It is then
advisable to reach a level of proximity at a certain equilibrium.

Finally, the project is a deep change in processing practice, possibly
generating social rebound effect. Flour is currently mostly produced
manually, at small scale, by group of women auto organized in rural
<caption>**Table 3**</caption>

Template to support the selection of indicators about “Rethink”. Applied on the case study detailed in section 3. Cells highlighted contain indicators. The cell color indicates the scale of the indicator. With ow the plant owners, fi the financers, fa the farmers, tr the transporters, di the distributors, eq the equipment manufacturers; wo the workers; lo the local community, ea the environmental association, co the consumers, po the politics of the city, ar the artisanal processors.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Dimensions</th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="10">Stakeholders</th></tr><tr><th colspan="5">allied</th><th colspan="2">engaged</th><th colspan="4">militant</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th>ow</th><th>fi</th><th>fa</th><th>tr</th><th>di</th><th>eq</th><th>wo</th><th>lo</th><th>ea</th><th>co</th><th>po</th><th>ar</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="9">nature</td><td>biogeochemical flows</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>change in biosphere</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>integrity</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>climate change</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>freewater</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>land system change</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>novel entities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ocean acidification</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>stratospheric ozone depletion</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">social</td><td>cohesion/colaboration</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>cultural heritage</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>equity, diversity, inclusion</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>governance</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>quality of life</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">socio-economy</td><td>social cohesion</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>economic welfare</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">economy</td><td>economic performance</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>financial performance</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>technologic</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>flow</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

regions. Revenue loss for these women and changes in the social structure in rural areas should be considered.

Indicators about these risks of rebound effect are included, i.e. farmer training, proportion of chemicals in cropping, proportion of informal jobs, revenue and frequency of meeting of the current flour producers.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7.** Matrix of selecting of rethink indicators.</figcaption></figure>

### Step 5: Evaluation of the indicators selected and rebound effect

Selected indicators cover all the dimensions, scales and R-strategies (Fig. 8). Possible rebound effects and ways to limit them were thought. Both rebound effects and stakeholders interest grades are not maximal as they would be better assessed through a participatory approach. Once the indicators fed with data, the level of adequation of the scenarios with the CE could be correctly discussed. Decisions would be based on a systemic vision of the system, leading to a system more sustainable.

## 4. Global discussion

### i. Indicators and framework

It misses indicators assessing flow circularity in a long-term perspective. Quantifying the capacity of the system to conserve a stock of resources would assess if the flow R-strategies reach their main objective. Arnsperger and Bourg (2016) present theoretical indicators about resource residence time in the economy and availability in a long-term perspective. It remains currently a challenge to quantify, mainly as it requires a deep thinking about the system boundaries. Yet they are in the database to remind them. It also misses indicators about
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 8. Evaluation of the assessment quality.</figcaption></figure>

the quality loss of materials due to recirculation strategies.

The indicators collected represent the circularity of flows, the impact on sustainability or the actions implemented to enable a transition. This last type of indicator, known as a process indicator, is important to support long term transitions. Both impact and process indicators are categorized in Rethink. They are not differentiated into sub-categories, because some may represent an impact or a mean depending on the context. More generally, the categories presented can be porous and the classification partly subjective. For example, an indicator of impact on human health may be both environmental and social. While classification remains necessary to provide an accessible tool, this element of subjectivity and complexity must not be overlooked.

The framework of classification was compared to legislations about CE, currently emerging in Europe. The European directive about extra financial reporting (CSRD, 2022) includes a category “Resource use and circular economy”. CE is limited to the flow circularity, excluding the sustainability from its scope. Furthermore, the economy seems limited to financial objectives. It aims to decouple financial profit and resource consumption. Unlike the present study, the norm is then situated in a financierized economy, without systemic vision. The present article is then expected to lead to deeper transformations of systems.

A project of ISO standard about CE was recently approved (International Organization for Standardization, 2024). It presents a more holistic vision of the CE than the CSRD, including sustainability assessment. As the present study, the norm proposes to assess the flow circularity and the sustainability of the system. Yet it seems less transformative than the framework of the present study. In their perspective, CE modifies the technical system, focused on resource production and management, impacting economic, social and environmental systems. No elements relating to a global rethinking of the system are presented in the definition of the R-strategies, as in the "actions" proposed.

## ii. Method

Governance is an aspect of social sustainability highlighted in scientific literature (Mies and Gold, 2021) and in legislation (CSRD, 2022) about CE. Some advocates a collaborative governance where the stakeholders participate in the decision-making and implementation of actions. Rules and decisions are permanently revised through negotiations between stakeholders. Negotiations are also a way to share responsibilities (Lacroix and St-Arnaud, 2012). It should then impact social desirability of a project, another important aspect of the social sustainability. Indeed, some industrial project failed by lack of social acceptability. The present study proposes to involve stakeholders in all the steps of the method, to co-build the problematic, scenarios, system

definition and evaluation framework. It could lead to a deep and holistic rethinking of different systems and their governance. This approach, made possible by aggregating and operationalizing multidisciplinary concepts, is the main contribution of this study. It is a paradigm shift from the aggregated indicators usually developed, supposed to be valid in different contexts (De Pascale et al., 2021). It also differs from existing tools and methods, which either propose to select existing aggregated indicators (Saidani et al., 2019), or are sector specific (Coluccia et al., 2024), or not participative (Poponi et al., 2022). These existing tools seem to enable a faster definition of indicators, while they seem to propose an analysis of the system slightly more superficial. They could then be less transformative.

Stakeholders involved influence the indicator set, while the method influences them through the discussions and knowledge shared. Moreover, the indicator use depends on its institutional anchoring (Bauler, 2012). Stakeholder selection is then a key step. In the case the study, each stakeholder interests focus mainly on one dimension, depending on their degree of societal engagement (Table 3). Including militant and engaged stakeholders seems necessary to consider nature and social sustainability with a long-term perspective. Nonetheless, some short-term interests should be considered to involve all stakeholders in the transition. It is expected that the discussion and frameworks would lead to include such interests as mean and not objective of the project. Moreover, Fraser et al. (2006) and Ottaviani et al. (2021) highlighted that involving researchers legitimize the indicators. It is expected that the tools proposed legitimize them also. Stakeholders involved could also depend on the step of the method. For indicators related to vague concepts as economic and social sustainability, a high diversity of stakeholders could be involved. Indicators would then represent their vision (Ottaviani et al., 2021), possibly influenced by the framework. Yet further reflections should be carried out about the level of consciousness and knowledge of the users; if and how to improve it. Their involvement for the indicators of environmental sustainability and flow circularity is also important for the desirability of the project. Nonetheless, it is advisable to propose a higher involvement of experts for these aspects, impacting less directly some stakeholders. Experts could propose a deeper and more complete analysis, eventually supported by methods such as eLCA or mass flow analysis (MFA), or those listed in the norm (International Organization for Standardization, 2024).

The case study demonstrated the relevance of the method at micro scale, on a plant. Its relevance at other scales and in other contexts remains to be demonstrated. On a meso scale (network of productive stakeholders) the application appears to be in line with this one. Nonetheless, new indicators should probably be added for some sectors or problematics. On a macro scale, or with a very different problematic,
the method should probably be completed. The doughnut framework, widely used to support the co-definition of territorial policies, would be particularly interesting (Doughnut Economics Action Lab et al., 2020). The framework proposed by Max-Neef on basic human needs could also be complementary. New ways of meeting these needs could be co-defined (Guillen-Royo, 2020). The method of the present study would then support the evolution of the revealed system to meet this modified demand.

## 5. Conclusion

The CE is a vague concept, implemented in different contexts. Numerous indicators have been developed to assess or guide its implementation. They reflect the vision of the indicator's creators and the specificities of the system for which they were developed. They have three main shortcomings: they are incomplete, specific and aggregated. In this context, the following questions seem unavoidable: what should indicators about CE represent? How? How to adapt them in several contexts? This study is a contribution to answer these questions.

To address the two first questions, a database of 379 disaggregated indicators classified in a framework were deduced from the literature about the CE and the sustainability. The categories of the framework present the aspects of the CE that might be relevant to represent; and the indicators are examples of means to represent them. The framework is of special interest for academics conceptualizing the CE. Moreover, the lack of indicators about material availability in a long-term perspective is a perspective of research study. It is to be noted that these tools should evolve depending on their use: categories and indicators could be added. Practitioners as academics could adapt them to different uses (e.g. concertation, identification of indicators for simulation).

To address the third question, a generic participative method using the database to identify the relevant indicators for a specific problematic is proposed. It aggregates and operationalizes concepts and tools deduced from a multidisciplinary literature. Its capability was tested to help developing a food processing plant. For academics or practitioners in engineering, it is an innovative approach to define indicators,

allowing to (re)think the problem with a systemic vision. The implementation of the method is expected to support decision-making in a large variety of projects, in view of a transition to a more CE. Also seen as a way to revise the governance, it is of special interest for a large variety of practitioners, from engineers to politics. A perspective would be to apply the method through participatory workshops, in several contexts. Reciprocal impacts between stakeholders and indicators could be analyzed. Analysis frameworks from Bauler (2012) and Van den Hove (2001) could be used and the revealed doxas analyzed. The genericity of the method and tools would be discussed and improved. Indeed, they are destined to evolve and be completed according to their use and advances in the literature.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Léa van der Werf:** Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation. **Gabriel Colletis:** Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Conceptualization. **Stéphane Negny:** Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Conceptualization. **et Ludovic Montastruc:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Lea van der Werf reports financial support was provided by Occitanie Region. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Occitanie Region, through the "Défi Clé Circulades". The authors thank researchers of the project ASECT, to have shared their expertise.

## Appendix A and B. Risk of rebound effect and indicator database. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.144678.

## Appendix C. Overview of the indicators database: definition of keywords associated to each dimension and number of indicators per keyword and scale

Keywords and indicators related to the rethink strategy.

Indicators would assess if elements of the system were thought to enable both flow circularity and sustainability social, economic, and of the nature. Following tables presents those associated to each dimension of the system.

<table><caption>**Table 1**
Keywords associated to the dimension nature.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Keywords</th><th rowspan="2">Keyword 2</th><th colspan="4">Number of indicators per scale</th><th rowspan="2">Definition</th></tr><tr><th>nano</th><th>micro</th><th>meso</th><th>macro</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">biogeochemical flows (P and N cycles)</td><td>phosphore flow</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>phosphore applied, going to soil or ocean</td></tr><tr><td>industrial fixation of N</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>flow of intentionally fixed nitrogen</td></tr><tr><td>nitrogen flow</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>nitrogen applied or flow quantity</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">change in biosphere integrity</td><td>protected area</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>Operational sites owned, leased or managed in or adjacent to protected areas, and in biodiversity-rich areas outside protected areas</td></tr><tr><td>threatened species</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>Total number of threatened species on the IUCN global red list and its national equivalent whose habitats are found in areas affected by activities, by level of extinction risk</td></tr><tr><td>resource</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>Depletion of not renewable natural resources (kg eq Sb)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>genetic diversity</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>genetic diversity (E/MSY)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>functional integrity</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>functional integrity (energy available to ecosystems)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>extinction</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>Rate of species extinction (number of extinct species per year)</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>**Table 1 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Keywords</th><th rowspan="2">Keyword 1</th><th rowspan="2">Keyword 2</th><th colspan="4">Number of indicators per scale</th><th rowspan="2">Definition</th></tr><tr><th>nano</th><th>micro</th><th>meso</th><th>macro</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>disturbance</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>destruction ou la perturbation d'espèces ou d'habitats d'espèces protégées (ou non)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>pollution impacting biosphere disturbance</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>modification of the environment due to human activity that has an impact on the integrity of the biosphere but is not directly linked to another planetary limit (e.g. aquatic ecotoxicity, photochemical smog, ionizing radiation).</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">climate change</td><td></td><td>CO2 concentration</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>CO2 concentration in atmosphere</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>radiative forcing</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>radiative forcing</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>CO2 emission</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>flow of CO2</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>carbon tax</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>cost of carbon tax</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>energy imbalance</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>Energy imbalance at top-of atmosphere (W/m²)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>GHG emissions</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>GHG emission (flow or flow eq CO2)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">freewater</td><td></td><td>COD emission</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>COD emission flow</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>blue water disturbed</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>flow of freshwater use by human, human induced disturbance</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>green water disturbed</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>human induced disturbance of water available to plants</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>rain acidification</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>flow of substances responsible for acid rain (SO2, NOx, NH3, HCl, SO2; or expressed as SO2 eq)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">land system change</td><td></td><td>artificialization</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>artificialized land, land occupied by a project</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>forest</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>forest land as a percentage of original or potential forest</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>cropland</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>cropland use or land converted to crop</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>toxicity</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>toxic flow emission</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">novel entities</td><td></td><td>synthetic chemicals</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>synthetic chemicals released to the environment (without adequate safety testing)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>SO2 emission</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>SO2 emission flow</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>carbonate ion concentration</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>carbonate ion concentration in ocean</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">ocean acidification</td><td></td><td>CO2 emission</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>CO2 emission flow</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>stratospheric O3 concentration</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>stratospheric ozone concentration</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>emission of ozone-depleting substances</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>emission of ozone-depleting substances (CFC, halons, Carbon tetrachloride, 1.1.1-trichloroethan, HCFC)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Keywords associated to the dimension social.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Keywords</th><th rowspan="2">Keyword 1</th><th rowspan="2">Keyword 2</th><th colspan="4">Number of indicators per scale</th><th rowspan="2">Definition</th></tr><tr><th>nano</th><th>micro</th><th>meso</th><th>macro</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">social cohesion/ collaboration</td><td></td><td>satisfaction</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>evolution of mindset enabling to implement a CE, reduce resource consumption (towards a more sober lifestyle, take care of objects, change ogranisation structure ...)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>mindset change</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>8</td><td>participatory approaches (workshops, consultations), employee shareholding</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>participation and involvement of stakeholders in CE projects</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>quality and strength of the relation (transparency, privacy, consideration of needs, corruption, trade union, cooperation, risk of conflicts, integration with the local community)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>relation with other target groups</td><td>6</td><td>10</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>involvement of population in associations</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">quality of life</td><td></td><td>engagement in local life, development of a network</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>policies including laws & CSR, managerial strategies including R&D, education and suppliers selection, business models, facilities and repartition of the responsibilities (recycling, ...) implemented to develop a CE</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>engagement to implement CE</td><td>4</td><td>11</td><td>10</td><td>8</td><td>satisfaction with life quality, the meaning of work as experienced by people, emigration rate</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>satisfaction</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>education campaigns, trainings, inside organizations, external, for different stakeholders, for CE or more general</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>education and awareness</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>3</td><td>10</td><td>element specific to workers satisfaction and workers kind of contracts</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">equity, diversity/ inclusion</td><td></td><td>work conditions</td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>relative to accidents, security and diseases at work; product safety; overall health (diseases linked to the living environment, life time) safety (crime rates) of the population; expenditure for stakeholders health</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>health and safety</td><td>1</td><td>14</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>access to and availability of resources and services for essential needs (despite resource competition); facilities/services for flow circulating and other day-to-day life needs</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>infrastructure service and resources availability</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>pollution impacting directly citizen in their perception of their life environment; satisfaction of this environment</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>perception of local environmental quality (including dust, noise, ...)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>respect of stakeholders rights (e.g. ownership, trade union, human rights)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">governance</td><td></td><td>respect of rights</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>gender equity (salary, employment)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>gender</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>proportion of employees with a disability, facilities accessible</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>disabled people</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>proportion of employees from a minority, respect of indigenous people rights</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>minority, indigenous peoples</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>Composition of governance bodies by professional category, according to gender, age group, minority status, local vs external community and other diversity indicators</td></tr><tr><td>acceptability</td><td></td><td>(vide)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>acceptability of the system for stakeholders.</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>**Table 2 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Keyword</th><th rowspan="2">Keyword 1</th><th rowspan="2">Keyword 2</th><th colspan="4">Number of indicators per scale</th><th rowspan="2">Definition</th></tr><tr><th>nano</th><th>micro</th><th>meso</th><th>macro</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">cultural heritage</td><td>recognition</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>level of recognition of peoples' culture and taking cultural care of workers</td></tr><tr><td>cultural events, services, preservation projects</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>events, services, budget available to preserve cultural heritage</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 3**
Keywords associated to the dimension economy.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Keyword</th><th rowspan="2">Keyword 1</th><th rowspan="2">Keyword 2</th><th colspan="4">Number of indicators per scale</th><th rowspan="2">Definition</th></tr><tr><th>nano</th><th>micro</th><th>meso</th><th>macro</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="7">economic performance</td><td>cost</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>profit</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>value added</td><td></td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>revenue</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>sales</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>new revenue model</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>new customer acquisition</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="9">financial performance</td><td>profit</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>return on investment</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>indebtedness</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>working capital</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>interests</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>wealth</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>revenues</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>return</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>growth rate</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 4**
Keywords associated to the dimension socio-economic.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Keywords</th><th rowspan="2">Keyword 1</th><th rowspan="2">Keyword 2</th><th colspan="4">Number of indicators per scale</th><th rowspan="2">Definition</th></tr><tr><th>nano</th><th>micro</th><th>meso</th><th>macro</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">social cohesion/<br/>collaboration</td><td>participation and involvement of<br/>stakeholders in CE projects</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>employee shareholding</td></tr><tr><td>relation with other target groups</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>corruption, consumer privacy, anti-competitive behaviour, local suppliers</td></tr><tr><td>engagement to implement CE</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>formation to and development of new revenue models, supplier selection on ethical environmental criteria, crs</td></tr><tr><td>quality of life</td><td>work conditions</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>about worker turnover, kind of contract, social benefits; supplier controlled with criteria about employment</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">circular strategy<br/>benefit or loss</td><td>respect of rights</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>respect of ownership and human rights</td></tr><tr><td>negative impacts on target group</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>additional cost, quality loss of products (e.g. due to recycling)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>employment</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>number of jobs created (especially for people with distance to labor market)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">economic welfare</td><td>poverty</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>relative to minimum income, poverty line</td></tr><tr><td>equity, diversity/inclusion</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>income and wage gap</td></tr><tr><td>employment</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>(un)employment rate and number of employes</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 5**
Keywords associated to the dimension technic.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Keywords</th><th rowspan="2">Keyword 1</th><th rowspan="2">Keyword 2</th><th colspan="4">Number of indicators per scale</th><th rowspan="2">Definition</th></tr><tr><th>nano</th><th>micro</th><th>meso</th><th>macro</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">resource</td><td>lifetime</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>product lifetime, matter lifetime in the economy, proportion of short live products</td></tr><tr><td>potential of recirculating</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>possibility to reuse, recycle, reconfigure products</td></tr><tr><td>utility</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>relative to intensity of use of products</td></tr><tr><td>stability</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>material scarcity, supply chain risks, price variation, effect of variation on resource scarcity</td></tr><tr><td>dismantling</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>dismantling cost and ease</td></tr><tr><td>equipment</td><td>availability</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>availability of the technology (equipment, ...)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 6**
Keywords associated to the dimension matter energy flow.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Keywords</th><th colspan="4">Number of indicators per scale</th><th rowspan="2">Definition</th></tr><tr><th>Keyword 1</th><th>Keyword 2</th><th>nano</th><th>micro</th><th>meso</th><th>macro</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>resource</strong></td><td>stability</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>effect of growth or destabilization on resource availability; matter scarcity, price variation, material supply chain risks</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>quality</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>product quality (depending on the case, can be composition or other)</td></tr></tbody></table>

2. Keywords and indicators related to the R-strategies about flow circularity (reduce, reuse, recycle, recover).

<table><caption>**Table 7**
Keywords about flow circularity, associated to the dimension matter and energy flow.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Keywords</th><th colspan="4">Number of indicators per scale</th><th rowspan="2">Definition</th></tr><tr><th>Keyword 1</th><th>Keyword 2</th><th>Keyword 3</th><th>nano</th><th>micro</th><th>meso</th><th>macro</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>resource</strong></td><td>flow</td><td>flow quantity</td><td>30</td><td>32</td><td>32</td><td>33</td><td>quantity of resource</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>flow</td><td>proportion of flow</td><td>49</td><td>49</td><td>49</td><td>49</td><td>ratio between several matter flows (e.g. recycled over total)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>flow</td><td>ratio flow eco</td><td>21</td><td>21</td><td>21</td><td>21</td><td>material productivity: ratio between a quantity of matter flow and an economical value (e. g. water used/PIB)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>flow</td><td>interconnexion</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>quantification of the interactions between industries in an EIT</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>flow</td><td>indirect</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>resource flow indirectly used</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>disponibility</td><td>none</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>Evaluates whether resource flows have changed over time &lt; available stock (dynamic)</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Appendix D. Indicators selected in the case study

<table><caption>**Table 8**
Indicators of flow circularity selected for the flour production unit. With P the power, $m_k$ the mass of k, $\dot{m}_k$ the flow rate of k.</caption><thead><tr><th>R-strategy</th><th>Flow</th><th>Scale</th><th>Indicator</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Reduce</td><td>Water</td><td>Micro (processing unit)</td><td>m<sub>water</sub>/m<sub>flour</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Energy</td><td>Micro (processing unit)</td><td>P<sub>water</sub>/m<sub>flour</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Energy</td><td>Micro (dryer)</td><td>P<sub>water</sub>/m<sub>flour</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Flour, raw agricultural material (tubers)</td><td>Micro (processing unit)</td><td>m<sub>tuber</sub>/m<sub>flour</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Flour</td><td>Micro (processing unit)</td><td>m<sub>flours</sub>/year</td></tr><tr><td>Fuel for transportation</td><td>Meso (value chain)</td><td>P<sub>water</sub>/m<sub>flour</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Recycle</td><td>Starch</td><td>Micro (processing unit)</td><td>m<sub>starch</sub>/m<sub>charged water</sub></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Reuse</td><td>Water</td><td>Micro (processing unit)</td><td>m<sub>water reused</sub>/m<sub>water input</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Cassava and sweet potato peel</td><td>Micro (processing unit)</td><td>m<sub>peel reused</sub>/m<sub>peel produced</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Recover</td><td>Cassava and sweet potato peel</td><td>Micro (processing unit)</td><td>m<sub>peel composted</sub>/m<sub>peel produced</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 9**
Indicators related to the rethink strategy.</caption><thead><tr><th>dimension</th><th>keyword1</th><th>indicator</th><th>stakeholders</th><th>scale</th><th>relative importance (grade 1–5)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">nature</td><td rowspan="5">change in biosphere integrity<br>climate change, ocean acidification<br>land system change<br>freewater</td><td>destruction or disturbance of species or habitats of protected species (or not)</td><td>local association</td><td>micro</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>greenhouse gas emission</td><td>local association</td><td>micro</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>surface artificialized</td><td>local association</td><td>micro</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>chemical oxygen demand emission</td><td>local community and associations</td><td>micro</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>ratio between water consumed by the plant and water consumed by the city</td><td>politic</td><td>macro</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>**Table 9 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>dimension</th><th>keyword1</th><th>indicator</th><th>stakeholders</th><th>scale</th><th>relative importance (grade 1–5)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="12">social</td><td rowspan="12">social cohesion/ collaboration</td><td>level of change in consumers' lifestyle and behavior</td><td>company owner</td><td>macro</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>local workers hiring</td><td>local community</td><td>micro</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>results of customer satisfaction surveys</td><td>consumer</td><td>micro</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>environmental and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) rapport released by company</td><td>financer</td><td>micro</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>product and service labeling</td><td>consumer</td><td>nano</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>frequency of stakeholder consultation</td><td>worker, farmer, transporter, distributor, equipment manufacturer, local community, local association, consumer, politic, artisanal processors</td><td>micro, meso, macro</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>cultural heritage</td><td>level of recognition of workers' [peoples] culture and taking cultural care of workers</td><td>worker</td><td>micro</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>equity, diversity, inclusion</td><td>employment rate of people with disabilities</td><td>local community, politic</td><td>micro</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>governance</td><td>Proportion of executives hired locally at main operating sites</td><td>local community</td><td>micro</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>quality of life</td><td>number of training hours per year per gender and professional category</td><td>worker</td><td>micro</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>odor</td><td>local community</td><td>macro</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>weight carried per worker per day (drudgery)</td><td>worker</td><td>micro</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">socio-economic</td><td>quality of life</td><td>employability skills in the community</td><td>company owner</td><td>micro</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">social cohesion</td><td>temporary worker</td><td>worker</td><td>micro</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>public sector corruption (corruption perceptions index score of the country - score)</td><td>company owner</td><td>macro</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>economic welfare</td><td>share of spending with local suppliers</td><td>farmer, transporter, equipment manufacturer</td><td>meso</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">socio-economic</td><td rowspan="10">social cohesion</td><td>wage gap</td><td>worker, farmer, transporter, distributor, equipment manufacturer</td><td>micro, meso</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>number of employees [or people involved in the value chain for meso]</td><td>local community</td><td>meso</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>employee shareholding</td><td>worker</td><td>micro</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>value added ($/kg root)</td><td>company owner, farmer, transporter, distributor, equipment manufacturer</td><td>micro</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>price ($/kg)</td><td>consumer, artisanal processors</td><td>nano</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>stability of root production (price, amount)</td><td>company owner</td><td>micro</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>processing stability in the year</td><td>farmer, transporter, manufacturer</td><td>micro</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>wage</td><td>worker, artisanal processors</td><td>micro</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>rate of return (or other)</td><td>financer</td><td>micro</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>new transportation routes</td><td>local community, politic, transporter, company owner</td><td>macro</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>technologic, social</td><td>quality of life</td><td>capacity to provide equipment of required technology</td><td>equipment manufacturer</td><td>micro</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">flow</td><td rowspan="3">social cohesion</td><td>accessibility to waste management</td><td>equipment manufacturer</td><td>micro</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>availability of equipment</td><td>company owner</td><td>meso</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>root quality</td><td>company owner</td><td>nano</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>product quality</td><td>consumer, artisanal processors</td><td>nano</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

## References

* Arnsterger, C., Bourg, D., 2016. Vers une économie authentiquement circulaire: Réflexions sur les fondements d'un indicateur de circularité. Revue de l'OFCE N° 145, 91–125. https://doi.org/10.3917/reof.145.0091.

* Baratsas, S.G., Pistikopoulos, E.N., Avraamidou, S., 2022. A quantitative and holistic circular economy assessment framework at the micro level. Comput. Chem. Eng. 160, 107697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2022.107697.

* Bauler, T., 2012. An analytical framework to discuss the usability of (environmental) indicators for policy. Ecol. Indicat. 17, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.05.013.

* Benoît Norrís, C., Traverzo, M., Neugebauer, S., Ekener, E., Schaubroeck, T., Russo Garrido, S., 2020. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations 2020.

* Bezzon, B., Levy, R., 2020. Le rôle des différentes proximités pour construire des relations d'affaires dans un cluster. Le cas du SPL Mecanic Vallée. mi 24, 43–55. https://doi.org/10.7202/1069093ar.

* Boschma, R., 2004. Proximité et innovation. ecoru 280, 8–24. https://doi.org/10.3406/ecoru.2004.5469.

* Bourg, D., 2018. De l'économie circulaire à l'économie permacirculaire. Annales des Mines - Responsabilité et environnement N° 89, 30. https://doi.org/10.3917/re1.089.0030.

* Castro, C.G., Trevisan, A.H., Pigosso, D.C.A., Mascarenhas, J., 2022. The rebound effect of circular economy: definitions, mechanisms and a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 345, 131136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131136.

* Colletis, G., Rychen, F., 2004. Entreprises et territoires : proximités et développement local. In: Economie de Proximités. Hermes-Lavoisier, pp. 207–230.

* Colletis, G., Salles, M., 2013. Déconstruire la doxa dominante, construire une pensée politique alternative. Du lien entre les représentations, les principes et les normes. Lo Sguardo 13, 391–414.

* Coluccia, B., Palmi, P., Krstić, M., 2024. A multi-level tool to support the circular economy decision-making process in agri-food entrepreneurship. Br. Food J. 126, 1099–1120.

* CSRD, 2022. Directive (UE) 2022/2464 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 14 décembre 2022 modifiant le règlement (UE) no 537/2014 et les directives 2004/109/CE, 2006/43/CE et 2013/34/UE en ce qui concerne la publication
d'informations en matière de durabilité par les entreprises. Texte présentant de
l'intérêt pour l'EEE, pp. 15-80.

De Oliveira, C.T., Dantas, T.E.T., Soares, S.R., 2021. Nano and micro level circular economy indicators: assisting decision-makers in circularity assessments. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 26, 455-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.11.024.

De Pascale, A., Arbolino, R., Szopik-Depczyńska, K., Limosani, M., Ioppolo, G., 2021. A systematic review for measuring circular economy: the 61 indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 281, 124942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124942.

Doughnut Economics Action Lab, Biomimicry 3.8, Circle Economy, C40, 2020. The Amsterdam city Doughnut: a Tool for Transformative Action.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013. Towards the Circular Economy (No. 1), an Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition.

Étienne, M., 2013. Companion Modelling: a Participatory Approach to Support Sustainable Development. Springer.

Fraser, E.D.G., Dougill, A.J., Mabee, W.E., Reed, M., McAlpine, P., 2006. Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 78, 114-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.009.

Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L., De Colle, S., 2010. Stakeholder Theory: the State of the Art. Cambridge University Press.

Girard, C., Sobczak, A., 2010. Pour une cartographie des parties prenantes fondée sur leur engagement : une application aux sociétaires d'une banque mutualiste française. Management & Avenir n° 33, 157-174. https://doi.org/10.3917/mav.033.0157.

Guillen-Royo, M., 2020. Applying the fundamental human needs approach to sustainable consumption corridors: participatory workshops involving information and communication technologies. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Pol. 16, 114-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2020.1787311.

Harris, S., Martin, M., Diener, D., 2021. Circularity for circularity's sake? Scoping review of assessment methods for environmental performance in the circular economy. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 26, 172-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.018.

International Organization for Standardization, 2024. Circular Economy. ISO Standard No 59000:2024).

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005.

Kirchherr, J., Yang, N.-H.N., Schulze-Süntrup, F., Heerink, M.J., Hartley, K., 2023. Conceptualizing the circular economy (revisited): an analysis of 221 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 194, 107001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107001.

Kristensen, H.S., Mosgaard, M.A., 2020. A review of micro level indicators for a circular economy-moving away from the three dimensions of sustainability? J. Clean. Prod. 243, 118531.

Lacroix, I., St-Arnaud, P.-O., 2012. La gouvernance : tenter une définition. Cahiers de recherche en politique appliquée 4, 19-37. https://doi.org/10.17118/11143/20084.

Lange, S., Banning, M., Berner, A., Kern, F., Lutz, C., Peuckert, J., Santarius, T., Silbersdorff, A., Arbeitsbericht, R., 2019. Economy-Wide Rebound Effects: state of the art, a new taxonomy, policy and research gaps. ReCap (Arbeitsbericht 1). Berlin.

Metic, J., Pigosso, D.C.A., 2022. Research avenues for uncovering the rebound effects of the circular economy: a systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 368, 133133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133133.

Mies, A., Gold, S., 2021. Mapping the social dimension of the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 321, 128960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128960.

Ottaviani, F., Le Roy, A., O'sullivan, P., 2021. Constructing non-monetary social indicators: an analysis of the effects of interpretive communities. Ecol. Econ. 183, 106962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106962.

Panchal, R., Singh, A., Diwan, H., 2021. Does circular economy performance lead to sustainable development? – a systematic literature review. J. Environ. Manag. 293, 112811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112811.

Poponi, S., Arcese, G., Pacchera, F., Martucci, O., 2022. Evaluating the transition to the circular economy in the agri-food sector: selection of indicators. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 176, 105916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105916.

Potting, J., Hekkert, M., Worrell, E., Hanemaaijer, A., 2017. Circular Economy: Measuring Innovation in the Product Chain. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, issue 2544.

Rallet, A., Torre, A., 2004. Proximité et localisation. Écon. Rurale 280, 27.

Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S.E., Donges, J.F., Drüke, M., Fetzer, I., Bala, G., Von Bloh, W., Feulner, G., Fiedler, S., Gerten, D., Gleeson, T., Hofmann, M., Huiskamp, W., Kummu, M., Mohan, C., Nogués-Bravo, D., Petri, S., Porkka, M., Rahmstorf, S., Schaphoff, S., Thonicke, K., Tobian, A., Virkki, V., Wang-Erlandsson, L., Weber, L., Rockström, J., 2023. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Sci. Adv. 9, eadh2458. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458.

Ruggerio, C.A., 2021. Sustainability and sustainable development: a review of principles and definitions. Sci. Total Environ. 786, 147481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147481.

Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., Cluzel, F., Kendall, A., 2019. A taxonomy of circular economy indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 207, 542-559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.014.

Valencia, M., Bocken, N., Loaiza, C., De Jaeger, S., 2023. The social contribution of the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 408, 137082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137082.

Van den Hove, S., 2001. Approches participatives pour la gouvernance en matière de développement durable: une analyse en termes d'effets. Gouvernance et développement durable, Bâle/Genève/Munich, Helbing & Lichtenhahn 53-89.

Walker, A.M., Opferkuch, K., Roos Lindgreen, E., Simboli, A., Vermeulen, W.J.V., Raggi, A., 2021. Assessing the social sustainability of circular economy practices: industry perspectives from Italy and The Netherlands. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 27, 831-844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.01.030.

Wenbo, L., 2011. Comprehensive evaluation research on circular economic performance of eco-industrial parks. Energy Proc. 5, 1682-1688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.287.

Xing, J., Vilas-Boas da Silva, J.M., Duarte de Almeida, I., 2017. A new conceptual perspective on circular economy: preliminarily confirmation of the 7R principle by a descriptive case study in eastern China. Presented at the 23rd Congress of the International Sustainable Development Research Society ISDRS, Eduardo Wills Herrera. School of Management Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá.

Yan, J., Feng, C., 2014. Sustainable design-oriented product modularity combined with 6R concept: a case study of rotor laboratory bench. Clean Techn Environ Policy 16, 95-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-013-0597-3.