Assessment of European Union countries’ positions in the context of circular economy

Purpose – Assess the level of the circular economy in EU countries between 2020 and 2023, ranking them according to circular economy indicators and identifying changes in their positions. Research methodology – The study used the European Commission’s 2023 set of indicators to evaluate the performance of the circular economy across EU countries. Twenty-three indicators were selected based on data availability. Missing data were forecasted using the moving average method to ensure completeness for subsequent analysis. The CRITIC method was then applied to determine indicator weights and rank countries, followed by the TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making approach to evaluate and compare national positions. Findings – The results show stable circular economy levels across the EU but with clear gaps between leading and lagging countries. Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy perform strongest, while Bulgaria and Romania progress slowly due to structural constraints. Lithuania, Austria, and other mid-tier countries advance gradually, with ranking shifts revealing uneven implementation of the EU Circular Economy Action Plan. Overall, the findings compare national progress and highlight key drivers and barriers to the transition. Research limitations – The study was constrained by incomplete and inconsistent EU statistical data, which required applying the Moving Average method to estimate missing values. In addition, the absence of a standardised composite indicator framework limited methodological comparability. Future research should prioritise improving data availability and creating unified guidelines for building composite indicators to strengthen reliability and cross-country benchmarking. Practical implications – The results provide policymakers and industry stakeholders with a clear ranking of EU countries’ progress in implementing circular economy principles, enabling targeted improvement strategies. The proposed methodology can be used to monitor nation- al performance, allocate resources effectively, and develop standardised evaluation frame- works for sustainability initiatives. Originality/Value – This study integrates the CRITIC and TOPSIS methods with the latest EU indicators – a combination rarely used in circular economy analysis. It offers a comprehensive multi-criteria assessment of EU countries, unlike earlier studies based on single or fragmented indicators.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Business Management and Economics Engineering
Published
2026-04-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2026.25686
Primary Topic
Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessment of European Union countries’ positions in the context of circular economy

Žaneta Karazijienė, Augustė Buivydaitė
Business Management and Economics Engineering
Sustainable Supply Chain Management
article

Assessment of European Union countries’ positions in the context of circular economy

Žaneta Karazijienė, Augustė Buivydaitė
article en

Abstract

Purpose – Assess the level of the circular economy in EU countries between 2020 and 2023, ranking them according to circular economy indicators and identifying changes in their positions. Research methodology – The study used the European Commission’s 2023 set of indicators to evaluate the performance of the circular economy across EU countries. Twenty-three indicators were selected based on data availability. Missing data were forecasted using the moving average method to ensure completeness for subsequent analysis. The CRITIC method was then applied to determine indicator weights and rank countries, followed by the TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making approach to evaluate and compare national positions. Findings – The results show stable circular economy levels across the EU but with clear gaps between leading and lagging countries. Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy perform strongest, while Bulgaria and Romania progress slowly due to structural constraints. Lithuania, Austria, and other mid-tier countries advance gradually, with ranking shifts revealing uneven implementation of the EU Circular Economy Action Plan. Overall, the findings compare national progress and highlight key drivers and barriers to the transition. Research limitations – The study was constrained by incomplete and inconsistent EU statistical data, which required applying the Moving Average method to estimate missing values. In addition, the absence of a standardised composite indicator framework limited methodological comparability. Future research should prioritise improving data availability and creating unified guidelines for building composite indicators to strengthen reliability and cross-country benchmarking. Practical implications – The results provide policymakers and industry stakeholders with a clear ranking of EU countries’ progress in implementing circular economy principles, enabling targeted improvement strategies. The proposed methodology can be used to monitor nation- al performance, allocate resources effectively, and develop standardised evaluation frame- works for sustainability initiatives. Originality/Value – This study integrates the CRITIC and TOPSIS methods with the latest EU indicators – a combination rarely used in circular economy analysis. It offers a comprehensive multi-criteria assessment of EU countries, unlike earlier studies based on single or fragmented indicators.

Business Management and Economics EngineeringVol. 24(2)
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (LT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Sustainable Supply Chain Management
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.