## 1 Introduction  
Over the past few years, the Circular Economy (CE) model has been attracting a great deal of interest in both developed and developing countries. The scientific community has not yet established a widely accepted definition, making CE a continuing topic of debate. Nevertheless, it is understood that CE's main philosophy is the movement away from linear models of production, consumption, and the final disposition of products toward more circular and sustainable models that optimize the use and reuse of materials, thus avoiding the exploitation of non-renewable resources. Emerging nations have followed CE models originally from Japan, China, and the European Union (EU), adapting them to their current legislation with regards to waste management. As shown below in the literature review, however, a generally accepted definition of CE remains elusive, prompting a wide range of ideas, methods and strategies [1,2]. It is, therefore, difficult to have an agreed metric for CE. Nonetheless, most indicators gravitate around waste recollection and recycling [2]. According to the UN's Global e-Waste Monitor (2020) [3], in 2019, 53.6 million tons (Mt) of e-waste was produced globally. Consequently, this makes e-waste the world's fastest-growing domestic waste stream, generated mainly by higher consumption rates of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE), short use of these products, and few options for repair and recycling. Of the 53.6 million tons of WEEE, 435 thousand tons corresponded to mobile phones. Worldwide, only 17.4% of the e-waste was collected and recycled. According to the report, Asia generated the greatest volume of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) (24.9 Mt), followed by the Americas (13.1 Mt) and Europe (12 Mt), while Africa and Oceania generated 2.9 Mt and 0.7 Mt, respectively. There are potential economic benefits of investing in the circular economy. Cellphones are a case in point, as shown in the international literature [4; 5; 6]. More specifically, [PERSON] et al. [5] argue that if electrical and electronic waste were recycled locally and efficiently, the recovery of materials in Europe such as gold, copper, silver, and palladium would be worth approximately $48 billion USD. [PERSON] et al. [7] determined that the economic value of gold, silver, and palladium in e-waste was $15.12 million USD per year in Latin America. The selection of Mexico as a case to study is highly relevant in the international arena. The country, with a 2015 population of almost 120 million people, is the second-largest economy of Latin America, after Brazil. These two countries are, in the same order, the largest generators of e-waste [3]. Thus, we think our findings are of interest to readers outside the country. More particularly, 1.2 Mt of e-waste was produced in Mexico [3]), within a set of low levels of circularity. Although there is little official information on this issue, it is estimated that only 10% of all WEEE is recovered through formal programs of government and private firms [8]. An additional 20% is collected via informal channels [9; 10]. Thus, a gross figure of circularity would be in the range of 30%. For some authors, this is a high figure in the Latin American setting [3; 11]. However, at the end of the day, roughly 70% of all WEEE is not collected. The economic losses caused by a limited reuse of this e-waste are estimated between $11.3 billion to $12.4 billion USD [12]. In addition to these economic impacts, it is estimated that the recovery of electronic waste could generate around 178,000 direct jobs by 2030 [13]). The analysis and implementation of CE policies are done through a waste management perspective. Japan's CE model is stated as a \"virtuous cycle of the environment and growth\" enabled by a set of strategies to reduce, reuse and recycle, being led by the Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy Division of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry [14].