Top 10 Actions for Navigating Circular Economy Standards and Metrics

To help development practitioners, here are top 10 actions for navigating the growing landscape of standards and metrics that define, measure, and advance the circular economy in practice.

1. Establish clear standards and metrics to anchor effective policy and investment.
   For governments and development agencies, standards and indicators are not abstract tools—they make it possible to design policies, set priorities, and allocate resources. Without clear criteria and metrics, circular economy initiatives risk becoming fragmented and difficult to evaluate and declare as relevant.
    

2. Take note of the growing number of frameworks to manage rising demand.
   At least eight major international standards and frameworks now exist, led by organizations such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 59004:2024, ISO 59010:2024, ISO 59020:2024), the European Union (EU monitoring framework), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Inventory of Circular Economy Indicators), the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (Guidelines for Measuring Circular Economy), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (Circular Transition Indicators), and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (Circulytics). The proliferation of these frameworks shows the increasing demand for structure and accountability, but also raises questions about consistency and comparability.
    

   Figure 1: Key Circular Economy Frameworks Worldwide

   

   Note: EU = European Union, ISO = International Organization for Standardization, OECD = Organisation for Economic Co-operation, UNECE = United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, WBCSD = World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
   Source: Authors.

3. Define what qualifies as a circular economy activity.
   One of the most practical challenges for governments and donors is drawing the line between circular economy and related sustainability actions. Frameworks vary—for example, in whether renewable energy is considered circular or if digital platforms are enablers—highlighting the importance of developing an agreed criteria to avoid mislabeling and ensure comparability.
   
   At its core, a circular economy aims to extend the life of resources—materials, water, and energy. This approach sees raw materials where others see only waste, and alternative water resources where others see only wastewater.
    

4. Implement direct circular economy actions.
   Across global standards and frameworks, there is strong alignment on direct circular economy actions such as:

   • Designing products for circularity
   • Reducing or refusing unnecessary material use
   • Reuse, repair, refurbishment, remanufacturing
   • Redistributing products for higher value use
   • Recycling and material recovery
   • Regeneration

   
   These direct actions form the “core loops” of circularity and are consistently recognized as central to circular economy.

5. Strengthen enabling activities to scale circularity.
   Equally important as direct actions are enabling activities that create the environment for circular practices to grow. These include policy and regulatory frameworks, circular procurement, education and skills development, financing instruments, cross-sector integration, digital enablers, and innovation systems. From a development perspective, these enablers are critical entry points for technical assistance, capacity building, and policy dialogue.
    

   Figure 2: Direct and Enabling Actions for a Circular Economy

   

   Source: Authors.

6. Compare how standards and frameworks define activities.
   Not all frameworks explicitly define circular economy activities. ISO 59004 and the UNECE Conference of European Statisticians Guidelines do so clearly, while others—such as the EU monitoring framework and the OECD Inventory of Circular Economy Indicators—focus mainly on outcomes. These differences reflect diverse audiences and purposes but also highlight the need for harmonization. Without it, reporting and planning implementation across countries and donors remain inconsistent.
    
7. Use indicators to translate circular economy into measurable progress.
   Indicators make it possible to assess whether circular economy activities deliver environmental and socioeconomic benefits. They track material consumption, waste generation, secondary resource use, emissions reduction, and social outcomes such as jobs and inclusiveness. For development partners, indicators provide the evidence for policy reform, monitoring results frameworks, and cross-country comparisons.
    

8. Apply indicators across multiple levels and dimensions.
   Circular economy benchmarking must work at both the micro level (projects, products, enterprises) and the macro level (cities, regions, countries). Indicators also cover multiple dimensions:

   • Resource flows (e.g., material footprint, direct material inputs, energy intensity, water footprint)
   • Environmental outcomes (waste prevention, emission avoidance, emissions reductions)
   • Economic aspects (resource productivity, value added)
   • Social impacts (employment, skills, equity in transition)

   
   This multidimensional approach aligns circular economy monitoring with the broader sustainable development agenda.

9. Balance flexibility and fragmentation across frameworks.
   The existence of multiple standards and frameworks enables flexibility, which allows countries and organizations to adopt what fits their needs. There are frameworks for simultaneously tracking environmental impacts (carbon reduction, resource conservation), economic outcomes (circular economy revenue, cost savings), and social benefits (job creation, skills development). However, multiple standards and frameworks also risks duplication, inconsistent reporting, and data gaps. Donors and multilateral organizations can help by supporting convergence and building capacity for consistent circular economy monitoring.
    
10. Engage development agencies to drive alignment.
    Development agencies and multilaterals have a unique role in aligning standards and frameworks for circular economy activities and indicators. They can:
     
    • Support governments in adopting standards and indicators through technical assistance and policy alignment
    • Promote comparability across countries to facilitate international cooperation, trade, and investment
    • Strengthen statistical capacity so national data systems can generate reliable circular economy metrics
    • Encourage harmonization by integrating diverse frameworks into coherent guidance

Standards and metrics are more than technical details—they are the scaffolding for a credible, measurable, and equitable circular economy transition that development partners can help accelerate across Asia and the Pacific, and beyond.

While circular economy frameworks provide clarity on activities and metrics, the reality of implementation is far more complex. Not all circular actions automatically deliver environmental or economic benefits. For example, recycling processes can consume more energy and water than producing with virgin materials. Transitioning to a circular economy also requires upfront financial investment, which may strain governments, cities, or enterprises with limited resources. These tensions show that circularity should not be pursued blindly, but evaluated carefully against environmental, social, and economic trade-offs.

Another layer of complexity lies in product design and legacy materials already in circulation. Many products—such as end-of-life wind turbine blades or multilayer plastics—are difficult to recycle with current technology. This highlights the importance of investing in innovation at the design stage so future products are easier to disassemble, repair, and recycle. Policies and incentives must encourage circular thinking from the start, rather than at the end of a product’s life. A credible circular economy transition requires confronting technical, financial, and systemic challenges head-on.