Benefits and Limitations of Indicators for Monitoring the Transformation towards a Circular Economy in Poland
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Macro-level (EU and individual countries);
- Meso-level (region, sector);
- Micro-level (city, company, product).
- Decoupling economic growth from negative environmental impacts;
- Increasing the efficiency of the use of natural resources;
- Reducing the environmental impact at all stages of the product’s (goods and services) life cycle, including minimising waste generation;
- Increasing people’s well-being.
- Indicators related directly to specific strategies or materials, e.g., recycling rates for selected materials;
- Direct indicators embracing more than one strategy, e.g., reduced water consumption;
- Indirect indicators containing information about the CE but not referring directly to CE goals, e.g., the eco-innovation indicator measuring effective management of resources.
- Technological progress—growing productivity allows one to manufacture the same number of products and services with reduced consumption of resources. Similarly, it is possible to substitute rare or hazardous resources with “greener” ones; at the same time, the overall impact of technical progress on demand for materials may vary in nature (depending on the industry, type of material, etc.).
- Structural changes—a higher share of the service sector and new technologies may lead to a reduction in the demand for resources per GDP unit, while a high share of material-consuming sectors (e.g., industry or construction) increases the demand for resources.
- With infrastructural saturation developing as the country’s economic growth continues, demand for investment in infrastructure may decline. Note that the maintenance of the existing infrastructure also requires the consumption of resources.
- Environmental regulations—increased environmental awareness and more restrictive environmental regulations in developed countries may cause a transfer of industries to developing countries (i.e., carbon leakage).
- Factors related to the availability of resources, the climate, topography, and demography (including the density of the population), which can be affected only slightly over a relatively short period.
- Economic tools—a change in taxes, methods of subsidy, or support and aid programs—should affect the demand and supply of CE products and services.
- A lack of an indicator assessing the holistic impact on the environment, e.g., by using the methodology for life cycle assessment;
- The impact assessment does not take other or multiple reuses of both products and shared infrastructure into account;
- The indicators do not reflect the complexity of recycling, types of waste, and the demand for key/critical materials in the economy;
- There is no reference to the issue of competitiveness and the changes arising from the introduction of business models and the scale of business related to the rapid introduction of CE.
2. Materials and Methods
- In the first step, a detailed analysis of published research was conducted using the desk research method. This state-of-the-art analysis was based on the review approaches used in [36] to conduct searches and eligibility screening of the available literature while retaining the procedural scope of the analysis and ensuring that the review process is objective. The objective of this step of the research was to review the indicators (economic, social, technological, and environmental) from national and international organizations.
- An analysis of the existing indicators and available data for monitoring activities similar to the CE, as reported by the Central Statistical Office and Eurostat.
- An analysis of the indicators proposed in government documents (strategies and “The Roadmap for Transformation Towards the Circular Economy”) and strategies.
- Breakdown of the indicators into the main, auxiliary, and contextual indicators based on internal consultations with experts from the National Smart Specializations CE group and with scientists, experts in the fields of economics, environment, and statistics, in order to select indicators arising from the definition and scope of the CE.
- Building a questionnaire and sending it out to selected industries, i.e., those with the lowest resource productivity and the highest importance for the economy. The questionnaire made it possible to identify respondents by company name, industry/sector, and respondent’s position. Two forms of selection were used to choose the survey sample: simple random selection—the required number of sample elements was drawn directly from the population, which guaranteed that they were highly representative—and volunteer selection—the questionnaire was posted on the Internet. Linkert’s scale was used to develop the questionnaire. A five-point assessment scale was used to obtain answers on the degree of acceptance of a given phenomenon and view. The scale range was from 1 to 5: 1—not important, 2—rather not important, 3—do not know, 4—somewhat important, and 5—important.
- Revision of the proposed indicators in terms of their goals, targets, and directions for the development of the Polish economy, accounting for CE in the strategic documents, and proposals for CE indicators for the Polish economy by the expert group.
- Evaluation of the importance of the indicators and the rates and directions of their change on the basis of a wide range of social consultations. At the next stage of the research, new indexes may be developed based on aggregated data, taking into account, for example, the product life cycle and LCA methodology for environmental impact assessment. This may require the building of some additional databases [37].
3. Results
3.1. Transformation toward a Circular Economy in Polish Strategic Documents
3.1.1. The 2030 National Environmental Policy
3.1.2. The National Energy and Climate Plan 2021–2030
- 21–23% share of RES in the final gross energy consumption;
- A 23% growth in energy efficiency when compared with the PRIMES 2007 forecasts;
- A 50–60% reduction in the share of coal in electricity generation.
3.1.3. The Productivity Strategy 2030
3.1.4. Other Documents
- The National Strategy for Regional Development 2030;
- The Sustainable Transportation Development Strategy to 2030;
- The Strategy for the Sustainable Development of Rural Areas, Agriculture, and Fisheries to 2030.
- The Roadmap for the Transformation Towards the Circular Economy, specifying four key areas of transformation: sustainable industrial production, sustainable consumption, bio-economy, and new business models;
- National Smart Specializations, including the NSS Circular Economy—Circular Economy—water, fossil fuels, and waste;
- Key Assumptions for the 2021–2027 Partnership Agreement, emphasizing the importance of Industry 4.0. (Only 10% of domestic enterprises generate at least 1% of their revenues from online sales, which is why it will be important to support investments that increase the digitization, automation, or robotization indicators of enterprises).
- The added value of business organizations per employee;
- Capex to sales;
- % of investment in sustainable solutions in the total investment in innovation;
- The number of research projects in the past 3 years run jointly with academic and research centers;
- Efficiency in the consumption of materials,
- Energy efficiency;
- % of energy from RES consumed;
- Greenhouse gas emissions;
- Water efficiency;
- % of recycled or reused waste;
- % of raw materials and materials from sustainable sources.
- Resource productivity ratios;
- Domestic material consumption (DMC) per capita;
- Reuse of materials indicator;
- % of renewable energy in final energy consumption;
- Greenhouse gas emission growth rate;
- Corporate investment in innovation to GDP;
- National gross R&D investment to GDP;
- Global innovation (eco-innovation) indicator;
- % of municipal waste intended for specific treatment as a proportion of total waste;
- The number of passenger journeys in urban areas.
3.2. Indicators of Transformation toward a CE—A Breakdown
3.2.1. Main Indicators
- Resource productivity—DMC to GDP
- Renewable energy in the gross final energy consumption of enterprises
- R&D investment to GDP
3.2.2. Auxiliary Indicators
- Water consumption in industry to GDP
- Volume of industrial waste generated to GDP
- Secondary raw materials generated in the total production
- Reuse of the object or substance is guaranteed;
- An object or substance is fit for direct reuse rather than reprocessing, apart from where a standard industrial practice is involved;
- An object or substance is produced as an integral part of the production process;
- The substance or object meets all important requirements, including legal requirements, in terms of the product, environmental protection, and human life and health, for a pre-defined use, and such use will not lead to some generally negative environmental impact or impact on human life or health.
- The below-listed joint requirements:
- An object or substance is commonly used for specific purposes;
- A market for such objects or substances, or a demand for such objects or substances, exists;
- An object or substance meets the technical requirements in terms of their fitness for specific purposes as well as the requirements stipulated in regulations and standards applicable to the product;
- Application of an object or substance does not lead to any negative consequences for human life, health, or the environment;
- Requirements arising from the EU laws.
- Natural materials (minerals, plant, and animal materials);
- Materials resulting from processing (e.g., cement);
- Recyclable material (waste), which, in turn, is divided into postproduction waste generated in the production process and used waste. The latter may be used by another user following its proper preparation, replacing the primary raw material [43].
- Greenhouse gas emissions from industrial activities as a CO2 equivalent
- Number of services offered to entrepreneurs in the e-state service
- Number of environmental certificates awarded
3.2.3. Contextual Indicators
- Investment in environmental protection to total investment
- FTEs in CE-related bodies to total employment
- Total CE public contracts to total public contracts
4. Discussion
- Headline indicators presenting the productivity of resources.
- Panel indicators for resources such as soil, water, and coal.
- Theme indicators in the following areas: the transformation of the economy (including the transformation of waste into resources); nature and the ecosystem (biodiversity, air, and soil protection); and key areas (food, sustainable construction, and transportation) [48].
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- EC. Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2030, COM(2020) 652 Final. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1602781627860&uri=COM:2020:652:FIN (accessed on 19 December 2022).
- ESRS E5 Resource Use and Circular Economy, PTF-ESRS. 2022. Available online: https://www.efrag.org/Assets/Download?assetUrl=%2Fsites%2Fwebpublishing%2FSiteAssets%2FED_ESRS_E5.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2022).
- Aranda-Usón, A.; Portillo-Tarragona, P.; Scarpellini, S.; Llena-Macarulla, F. The progressive adoption of a circular economy by businesses for cleaner production: An approach from a regional study in Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, W.; Daddi, T.; Slabbinck, H.; Kleinhans, K.; Vazquez-Brust, D.; De Meester, S. Assessing the determinants of intentions and behaviors of organizations towards a circular economy for plastics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 163, 105069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Avdiushchenko, A. Toward a Circular Economy Regional Monitoring Framework for European Regions: Conceptual Approach. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winkler, H. Closed-loop production systems—A sustainable supply chain approach. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2011, 4, 243–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Haight, M.E.; Geng, Y.; Fujita, T. Managing municipal solid waste from a system perspective: A comparative study of Dalian, China and Waterloo. Canada Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 282e294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Sánchez, I.M.; Aibar-Guzmán, C.; Aibar-Guzmán, B. The effect of institutional ownership and ownership dispersion on eco-innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2020, 158, 120173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aibar-Guzmán, B.; Frías-Aceituno, J.-V. Is it necessary to centralize power in the CEO to ensure environmental innovation? Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathews, J.A.; Tan, H. Progress toward a circular economy in China. J. Ind. Ecol. 2011, 15, 435–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, Z.G.; Meng, X.Y. Quantitative assessment of industrial symbiosis for the promotion of circular economy: A case study of the printed circuit boards industry in China’s Suzhou New District. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 90, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elia, V.; Gnoni, M.G.; Tornese, F. Measuring CE strategies through index methods: A critical analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2741–2751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Maio, F.; Rem, P.C. A robust indicator for promoting circular economy through recycling. J. Environ. Protect. 2015, 6, 1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Maio, F.; Carlo Rem, P.; Baldé, K.; Polder, M. Measuring resource efficiency and circular economy: A market value approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 122, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vercalsteren, A.; Maarten, C.; Van Hoof, V. Indicators for a Circular Economy, Circular Economy Policy Research Center. Available online: https://circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/sites/default/files/summa_-_indicators_for_a_circular_economy.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- UNEP. Global Material Flows and Resource Productivity. An Assessment Study of the UNEP International Resource Panel. 2016. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-material-flows-and-resource-productivity-assessment-report-unep (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- OECD. Farm Management Practices to Foster Green Growth. 2016. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/publications/farm-management-practices-to-foster-green-growth-9789264238657-en.htm (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Moraga, G.L.; Huysveld, S.; Mathieux, F.; Blengini, G.A.; Alaerts, L.; Van Acker, K.; De Meester, S.; Dewulf, J. Circular economy indicators: What do they measure? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 452–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Telega, I. Czynniki zapotrzebowania materiałowego w krajach UE w latach 2000–2015. Przegląd Stat. 2018, LXV/1, 101–116. [Google Scholar]
- Saidani, M.; Yannou, B.; Leroy, Y.; Cluzel, F.; Kendall, A. A taxonomy of circular economy indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 542–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abu-Ghunmi, D.; Abu-Ghunmi, L.; Kayal, B.; Bino, A. Circular economy and the opportunity cost of not ‘closing the loop’ of water industry: The case of Jordan. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 131, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milios, L. Advancing to a Circular Economy: Three essential ingredients for a comprehensive policy mix. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 861–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parchomenko, A.; Nelen, D.; Gillabel, J.; Rechberger, H. Measuring the circular economy-A Multiple Correspondence Analysis of 63 metrics. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 200–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocken, N.M.P.; de Pauw, I.; Bakker, C.; Van der Grinten, B. Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2016, 33, 308–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Global Economy. Available online: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/share_of_services/ (accessed on 27 December 2022).
- Federal Ministry for the Environment. Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety. Germany-German Resource Efficiency Programme (ProgRess II). 2016. Available online: http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Pools/Broschueren/german_resource_efficiency_programme_ii_bf.pdf (accessed on 27 December 2022).
- Ministry of Environment of Portugal. Leading the Transition: A Circular Economy Action Plan for Portugal: 2017–2020. 2017. Available online: https://circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/sites/default/files/strategy_-_portuguese_ation_plan_paec_en_version_3.pdf (accessed on 27 December 2022).
- Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea Ministry of Economic Development. Towards a Model of Circular Economy for Italy—Overview and Strategic Framework. 2017. Available online: https://circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/sites/default/files/strategy_-_towards_a_model_eng_completo.pdf (accessed on 27 December 2022).
- European Commission. A Monitoring Framework for the Circular Economy; COM 29; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations General Assembly. United Nations General Assembly. United Nations Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. In Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; A/RES/70/1; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- European Environment Agency (EEA). Circular Economy in Europe—Developing the Knowledge Base; European Environment Agency; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Global Reporting Initiative. Performance Indicators; GRI: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Climate and Environment, Krajowy Plan Gospodarki Odpadami 2022. 2016. Available online: https://bip.mos.gov.pl/strategie-plany-programy/krajowy-plan-gospodarki-odpadami/krajowy-plan-gospodarki-odpadami-2022/krajowy-plan-gospodarki-odpadami-2022-przyjety-przez-rade-ministrow-uchwala-nr-88-zdnia-1-lipca-2016-r/ (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Ministry of Climate and Environment, Krajowy Plan na Rzecz Energii i Klimatu na Lata 2021–2030. Available online: https://dane.gov.pl/pl/dataset/2063,krajowy-plan-na-rzecz-energii-i-klimatu-na-lata-20 (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Ministry of Development and Technology, Strategia produktywności 2030. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/rozwoj-technologia/strategia-produktywnosci-2031 (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Nowaczek, A.; Kulczycka, J.; Bączyk, A. Postulated Measures for Monitoring Transformation towards a Circular Ecoomy. In Wskaźniki Monitorowania Gospodarki o Obiegu Zamkniętym/red. Nauk; Kulczycka, J., Ed.; Instytut Gospodarki Surowcami Mineralnymi i Energią Polskiej Akademii Nauk; Wydawnictwo IGSMiE PAN: Kraków, Poland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Valls, A.S.; Nadeem, S.P.; Anosike, A.; Kumar, V. A circularity measurement toolkit for manufacturing SMEs. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 7319–7343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Climate and Environment. The 2030 National Environmental Policy—the Development Strategy in the Area of the Environment and Water Management. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/climate/the-2030-national-environmental-policy--the-development-strategy-in-the-area-of-the-environment-and-water-management (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Statistics Poland. National Reporting Platform—SDG. Available online: https://sdg.gov.pl/en/guide/ (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- EC. Resource Efficiency. the Roadmap’s Approach to Resource Efficiency Indicators. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/targets_indicators/roadmap/index_en.htm (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Cholewa, M.; Kulczycka, J.; Nowaczek, A. Analiza zużycia materiałów w wybranych branżach przemysłu w Polsce jako baza monitorowania gospodarki o obiegu zamkniętym. Przegląd Chem. 2022, 99, Iss.3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bukowski, H.; Rosińska, M. Postępowanie z Odpadami Wraz z Zarysem Możliwych Zmian Regulacyjnych. Poradnik dla Przedsiębiorców. Innowo 2020. Available online: https://innowo.org/pl/publikacje-goz/203 (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Pietrzyk-Sokulska, E.; Radwanek-Bąk, B.; Kulczycka, J. Mineralne surowce wtórne—Problemy polskiego nazewnictwa i klasyfikacji w związku z realizacją gospodarki o obiegu zamkniętym. Przegląd Geol. 2018, 66, 160–165. [Google Scholar]
- Topliceanu, L.; Puiu, P.G.; Drob, C.; Topliceanu, V.V. Analysis Regarding the Implementation of the Circular Economy in Romania. Sustainability 2023, 15, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, S.; Martin, M.; Diener, D. Circularity for circularity’s sake? Scoping review of assessment methods for environmental performance in the circular economy. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 172–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pauer, E.; Wohner, B.; Heinrich, V.; Tacker, M. Assessing the environmental sustainability of food packaging: An extended life cycle assessment including packaging-related food losses and waste and circularity assessment. Sustainability 2019, 11, 925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Towa, E.; Zeller, V.; Achten, M.J.W. Assessing the circularity of regions: Stakes of trade of waste for treatment. J. Ind. Ecol. 2021, 25, 834–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EC. Europe 2020. A European Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Statistics Poland. Green Economy Indicators in Poland. 2020. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/environment-energy/environment/green-economy-indicators-in-poland-2020,3,4.html (accessed on 20 December 2022.).
- Gursel, I.V.; Elbersen, B.; Meesters, K.P.H.; van Leeuwen, M. Defining Circular Economy Principles for Biobased Products. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lieder, M.; Rashid, A. Towards circular economy implementation: A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 115, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EU Commission. Circular Economy Action Plan. 2020. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/DOC/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0098&from=EN (accessed on 27 December 2020).
- Pauliuk, S. Critical appraisal of the circular economy standard BS 8001:2017 and a dashboard of quantitative system indicators for its implementation in organizations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 129, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Pascale, A.; Arbolino, R.; Szopik-Depczyńska, K.; Limosani, M.; Ioppolo, G. A systematic review for measuring circular economy: The 61 indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 281, 124942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossi, E.; Bertassini, A.C.; Ferreira, C.d.S.; do Amaral, W.A.N.; Ometto, A.R. Circular economy indicators for organizations considering sustainability and business models: Plastic, textile and electro-electronic cases. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristensen, H.S.; Mosgaard, M.A.A. Review of micro level indicators for a circular economy—moving away from the three dimensions of sustainability? J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corona, B.; Shen, L.; Reike, D.; Carreón, J.R.; Worrell, E. Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—A review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sassanelli, C.; Rosa, P.; Rocca, R.; Terzi, S. Circular economy performance assessment methods: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 440–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vinante, C.; Sacco, P.; Orzes, G.B. Circular economy metrics: Literature review and company-level classification framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 288, 125090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Programme | Thematic Area | Number of Indicators Identified | Source |
---|---|---|---|
EUROSTAT. Circular Economy indicators | 1. Production and consumption; 2. Waste management; 3. Secondary raw materials; 4. Competitiveness and innovation. | 10 | [29] |
17 Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) | 1. Affordable and clean energy; 2. Decent work and economic growth; 3. Industry, innovation, and infrastructure; 4. Responsible consumption and production; 5. Climate action; 6. Life below water. | 35 | [30] |
European Environment Agency (EEA). Circular economy in Europe | 1. Material input; 2. Eco-design; 3. Production; 4. Consumption; 5. Waste recycling. | 15 | [31] |
Global reporting initiative (GRI) | 1. Environmental; 2. Economic; 3. Social. | 12 | [32] |
Strategic documents for Poland:
| 1. Climate state and impact indicators; 2. Air pollutant emissions; 3. Energy indicators; 4. Industrial pollution indicators; 5. Land and soil indicators; 6. Sustainable consumption and production; 7. Transport and environment reporting mechanism; 8. Water resource efficiency indicators. | 30 | [33,34,35] |
Level | Indicator Name/Unit | The Desired Direction of Indicator Change |
---|---|---|
Main | Resource productivity—DMC/GDP | ↓ |
Renewable energy in the gross final energy consumption by enterprises (%) | ↑ | |
R&D investment to GDP (%) | ↑ | |
Auxiliary | Water consumption in industry to GDP (%) | ↓ |
The volume of industrial waste produced to GDP (%) | ↓ | |
Secondary raw materials to total production (%) | ↑ | |
Greenhouse gas emissions from industrial activities in CO2 equivalent (CO2e)/year | ↓ | |
Number of e-state services addressed to entrepreneurs (items) | ↑ | |
The number of environmental certificates held (items) | ↑ | |
Contextual | Environmental Capex to total investment | ↑ |
FTEs in CE-related bodies to total employment (%) | ↑ | |
Total number CE public contracts to total public contracts | ↑ |
Benefits | Limitations |
---|---|
Data availability in Poland and Europe. | Not all areas of economic activity are reflected: the indicator reflects only those areas for which market transactions are recorded (due to the specificity of GDP). |
Country-level benchmarking. | No import or export data by region available. |
High quality of the statistics. | No differentiation of the volume of consumption of materials from primary and secondary sources. |
The measurable outcome of the application of the indicator: if GDP is growing faster than DMC, the resource productivity indicator is also going up. | GDP/DMC as an indicator takes a national production perspective, implying that it is insensitive to changes in environmental pressures outside the nation’s borders. |
Benefits | Limitations |
---|---|
Consistency with the SDGs and indicators. | Translating indirectly into CE goals, resulting in the increase of resources, e.g., critical resources, metals, etc. |
Of critical importance for the implementation of EU strategies and policies as well as the obligations they impose. | Limited benchmarking opportunities—a sector-by-sector presentation recommended. |
Of great importance for business—an increasing number of business entities present this type of data in their strategies and other documents. | |
Easily measured for individual units of production. | |
Directly linked to both the area indicated in the Roadmap (e.g., bio-economy) and National and Regional Smart Specializations. | |
Important from the point of view of environmental impact in the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. | |
Consistency with the CE strategy in Poland—the energy sector is recognized as the key sector in the development of the CE. |
Benefits | Limitations |
---|---|
Availability of data. | Impossibility of measuring dedicated funds invested in delivering CE-related tasks. |
The potential for setting out directions for change for the Polish economy. | It is not possible to identify the R&D investment actually made by specific types of enterprises. |
Indication of the level of innovation—important in terms of implementing the CE. | Investment in R&D work performed abroad (import of the R&D works) not taken into account. |
Possibility of assessing changes in economic development against the EU average. | |
Correlation of the indicator with changes in the level of economic development. |
Benefits | Limitations |
---|---|
Readily available and measurable data. | Recycled water not included in the statistics. |
Material importance for transformation towards a CE. | Water quality not taken into account in indicators. |
Consistency with the SDGs and indicators. | |
Compliance with the EU water management legislation (including the Framework Water Directive). | |
Country-level benchmarking. |
Benefits | Limitations |
---|---|
Good availability of a variety of data at the level of countries, regions, and businesses. | Difficulties in determining the actual environmental impact of different categories of waste (textiles, mining waste, etc.), types of waste, and assessing the types of impact of waste. |
Linking the indicator with the consumption of materials in the economy and the ability to identify the point where waste is generated in the life cycle. | Incomplete coherence of waste codes with the type of production activity. |
The potential for imagining the effectiveness and structure of the economy. | Lack of information about the origin of waste, e.g., in the waste recovery process, new waste is generated; the waste is recaptured in the statistics; as a result, the volume of waste is going down, but the volume of waste generated is going up, which is against the goals of the CE and means that there are calls to identify the original source of material in the life cycle. |
Rather crucial for minimising the environmental pressure related to waste generation. | Lack of continuity in reporting some data, e.g., mining waste (bi-annual reporting). |
Difficulties in comparing Polish and EU statistics from some countries, e.g., for mining industry waste against mining waste [22]. |
Benefits | Limitations |
---|---|
Significant for CE monitoring. | Scarce data. |
Very important for environmental protection. | A clear definition of recyclable waste is not available. |
Compliance with EU ratios—the CE monitoring framework in the EU includes a set of ten ratios grouped into four stages and aspects of CE. | Low importance for the economy (as in many instances, the share of recyclable waste is relatively low (5–10%), and its share in the production processes satisfies as little as 10% of EU demand). |
Recyclable material is commonly used in the CE for the production of new products. |
Benefits | Limitations |
---|---|
A direct link to the CE. | Limited potential for monitoring at the level of regions. |
An opportunity to meet international obligations, including climate neutrality by the 2050 target. | Limited EU country-level benchmarking. |
Reference to the regulation on disclosing information on sustainable investment and risk to sustainable development and the regulation on low emissions reference indicators and reference indicators on the positive impact on emissions. |
Benefits | Limitations |
---|---|
Comparability to other countries. | Limited potential for monitoring at the level of enterprises. |
Availability of data for the country and regions. | No data available for enterprises using e-state services. |
Link to the institutional development of the country. | High levels of investment required to expand activities to all services offered in the e-state. |
A direct link to the CE, including the availability of digital services, e-government as a continuous process of improving the quality of governance and the provision of administrative services by transforming internal and external relations with the Internet and modern means of communication. | Insufficient education on access to digital services. |
Benefits | Limitations |
---|---|
Availability of statistics. | Little interest has been shown by entrepreneurs, including little knowledge and the high costs of the interim audits. |
A reference to corporate environmental responsibility. | Few models are used for the effective implementation of the EMAS system. |
Impact on the increase of the economic outcomes of operations due to a reduction in the consumption of raw materials, water, and energy; cost efficiencies; a reduction in environmental fees (through the reduction of solid waste, wastewater, and the emission of gases; and an increase in the volume of recycled waste). | Monitoring difficulties because of the consistently low numbers of companies with environmental management systems in place. |
No commercial incentives to introduce eco-management systems. |
Benefits | Limitations |
---|---|
Link to economic development and the CE. | Covers only part of the actual environmental costs. |
Link to research, technology development, and innovation. | Taking into account all environmental investments, not necessarily directly related to the CE. |
Supporting access to information and data quality, as well as communication technologies. | |
Supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy in all sectors. |
Benefits | Limitations |
---|---|
Direct link to CE goals. | Low eligibility for monitoring. |
Easy to monitor. | No information available on key sectors directly related to the CE in Poland. |
Country-level benchmarking. | |
Significant importance for many strategies in Poland. | |
Strong synergies with the development of organizational, process, and product eco-innovation. |
Benefits | Limitations |
---|---|
Linked to environmental, social, and economic potential. | No uniform rules for data monitoring—often the description is in the subject matter of the contract and not in the pricing criteria. |
Link to CE growth in Poland. | Low percentage of CE contracts in the total number of public contracts. |
EU country-level benchmarking. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nowaczek, A.; Dziobek, E.; Kulczycka, J. Benefits and Limitations of Indicators for Monitoring the Transformation towards a Circular Economy in Poland. Resources 2023, 12, 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12020024
Nowaczek A, Dziobek E, Kulczycka J. Benefits and Limitations of Indicators for Monitoring the Transformation towards a Circular Economy in Poland. Resources. 2023; 12(2):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12020024
Chicago/Turabian StyleNowaczek, Agnieszka, Ewa Dziobek, and Joanna Kulczycka. 2023. "Benefits and Limitations of Indicators for Monitoring the Transformation towards a Circular Economy in Poland" Resources 12, no. 2: 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12020024
APA StyleNowaczek, A., Dziobek, E., & Kulczycka, J. (2023). Benefits and Limitations of Indicators for Monitoring the Transformation towards a Circular Economy in Poland. Resources, 12(2), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12020024