Hero image

Sweden

Partners
ReSource
Rise
Circle Economy
Overview
Introduction
Measuring the Circularity of SwedenScoping and trade dynamicsPractical challenges in quantifying circularity
Circularity Indicator Set
Material flow and footprints
Sizing Sweden's GapThe material footprint satisfying societal needsFamously low-carbon — but also highly material-intensiveA global standout for mineral, metal and biomass extractionExpanding building stock and thriving manufacturing industryA key player on the global scene with thriving trade
Bridging Sweden's Circularity GapConstruct a circular built environmentCultivate a thriving food systemMake manufacturing circularReshape extractive industriesDrive a clean mobility forwardDesign conscious consumablesCombined interventionsRoot causes preventing the realisation of 'what-if' scenarios
Recommendations

Practical challenges in quantifying circularity

Providing a year-zero baseline measurement of the circularity of a national economy based on resource flows offers many advantages, not least that it can be used as a call to action. But the circular economy is full of intricacies, and therefore, simplifications are necessary, which result in limitations that must be considered. Some detail needs to be shed for the benefit of having an updated and relevant figure of circularity to guide future legislative action.

  • There is more to circularity than cycling. A circular economy strives to keep materials in use and retain value at the highest level possible, while decreasing material consumption. The cycling of materials measured in the Circularity Metric is only one component of circularity.

  • The Metric doesn't capture all aspects of sustainability. Our Circularity Metric focuses only on material use: the share of cycled materials in the total material input. It does not account for other crucial aspects of sustainability, such as impacts on biodiversity, pollution, toxicity, and so on.

  • Lack of consistency in data quality. Whilst data on material extraction and use are relatively robust, data on the end-of-use stage are weak, presenting challenges in quantifying global material flows and stocks.

  • Quality loss and material degradation. The Metric focuses on the end-of-use cycling of materials that re-enter the economic system but does not consider in what composition, or to what level of quality. As such, any quality loss and degradation in processing goes unconsidered.

  • Relative compared to absolute numbers. The Circularity Metric considers the relative proportion of cycled materials as a share of the total material input: as long as the amount of cycled materials increases relative to the extraction of new materials, we see the statistic improving, despite the fact that more virgin materials are being extracted—which goes against the primary objective of a circular economy.

For a more exhaustive look into the methodology behind the Circularity Gap, you can visit our website: www.circularity-gap.world/methodology

Previous
Scoping and trade dynamics
Next
Circularity Indicator Set

The Circularity Gap Report is an initiative of Circle Economy, an impact organisation dedicated to accelerating the transition to the circular economy.

© 2008 - Present | RSIN 850278983