Interim tandems of life cycle assessment methods and circularity indicators—elaboration for the circular bio-economy

Introduction The transition toward a circular economy (CE) is a key strategy for sustainable production and consumption, yet its contribution to sustainability depends on how it is assessed. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) provides a robust framework for quantifying environmental impacts, but challenges arise when modeling circularity strategies such as recycling, recovery, and reuse. These include material quality degradation, allocation across successive uses, and capturing open-loop or cascading use patterns common in bio-based materials, which are modeled differently by different LCA methods. To address these challenges, this paper examines if and how circularity indicators (CIs) can complement LCA methods, with particular focus on the bioeconomy. Methods First, we review aspects and coverage of 48 identified circularity strategies for six prominent LCA methods—Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), EN 15804, Allocation at the Point of Substitution (APOS), and Consequential LCA (CLCA), and two system expansion approaches—alongside three stand-alone indicators: the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI), Circular Transition Indicators (CTI), and ISO 59020:2024. Using natural fiber insulation as a case study, we demonstrate the strengths and limitations of different LCA approaches. Results and discussion Results show that coverage of the 48 circularity strategies varies substantially among these LCA methods (13–42 covered) and CIs (9–22 covered). CLCA addresses the most circularity strategies (42). There are only five circularity strategies that are not covered by LCA, including those with socio-economic implications, which an improved life-cycle sustainability assessment framework could eventually address. In those five cases, the CIs CTI, and ISO 59020:2024 may be applied as a complement to LCA on an ad interim basis. A framework is proposed to select combined sets of LCA methods and CIs for specific goals and scopes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontiers in Sustainability
Published
2026-03-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2026.1766353
Primary Topic
Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Interim tandems of life cycle assessment methods and circularity indicators—elaboration for the circular bio-economy

Thomas Schaubroeck, Michael Saidani, Eduardo Entrena Barbero, Dieuwertje Schrijvers et al.
Frontiers in Sustainability
Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
article

Interim tandems of life cycle assessment methods and circularity indicators—elaboration for the circular bio-economy

Thomas Schaubroeck, Michael Saidani, Eduardo Entrena Barbero, Dieuwertje Schrijvers, Margarida Vidinha, Alexandre Charpentier Poncelet, Naeem Adibi, Tomas Rydberg, Milena Amaral, María Gallego Fernández
article en

Abstract

Introduction The transition toward a circular economy (CE) is a key strategy for sustainable production and consumption, yet its contribution to sustainability depends on how it is assessed. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) provides a robust framework for quantifying environmental impacts, but challenges arise when modeling circularity strategies such as recycling, recovery, and reuse. These include material quality degradation, allocation across successive uses, and capturing open-loop or cascading use patterns common in bio-based materials, which are modeled differently by different LCA methods. To address these challenges, this paper examines if and how circularity indicators (CIs) can complement LCA methods, with particular focus on the bioeconomy. Methods First, we review aspects and coverage of 48 identified circularity strategies for six prominent LCA methods—Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), EN 15804, Allocation at the Point of Substitution (APOS), and Consequential LCA (CLCA), and two system expansion approaches—alongside three stand-alone indicators: the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI), Circular Transition Indicators (CTI), and ISO 59020:2024. Using natural fiber insulation as a case study, we demonstrate the strengths and limitations of different LCA approaches. Results and discussion Results show that coverage of the 48 circularity strategies varies substantially among these LCA methods (13–42 covered) and CIs (9–22 covered). CLCA addresses the most circularity strategies (42). There are only five circularity strategies that are not covered by LCA, including those with socio-economic implications, which an improved life-cycle sustainability assessment framework could eventually address. In those five cases, the CIs CTI, and ISO 59020:2024 may be applied as a complement to LCA on an ad interim basis. A framework is proposed to select combined sets of LCA methods and CIs for specific goals and scopes.

Frontiers in SustainabilityVol. 7
Welch Foundation (US), Sustainability Institute (ZA), IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute (CN), Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LU), Kaili University (CN), Walloon Excellence in Lifesciences and Biotechnology (BE), Institute for Sustainability (GB), Contactica (ES), École de Technologie Supérieure (CA)
Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg, HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
Responsible consumption and production
Openalex Percentile: Top 36%
Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.