The goal of the circular economy (CE) is to transition from today's take-make-waste linear pattern of production and consumption to a circular system in which the societal value of products, materials, and resources is maximized over time. Yet circularity in and of itself does not ensure social, economic, and environmental performance (i.e., sustainability). Sustainability of CE strategies needs to be measured against their linear counterparts to identify and avoid strategies that increase circularity yet lead to unintended externalities. The state of the practice in quantitatively comparing sustainability impacts of circular to linear systems is one of experimentation with various extant methods developed in other fields and now applied here. While the proliferation of circularity metrics has received considerable attention, to-date, there is no critical review of the methods and combinations of methods that underlie those metrics and that specifically quantify sustainability impacts of circular strategies. Our critical review herein analyzes identified methods according to six criteria: temporal resolution, scope, data requirements, data granularity, capacity for measuring material efficiency potentials, and sustainability completeness. Results suggest that the industrial ecology and complex systems science fields could prove complementary when assessing the sustainability of the transition to a CE. Both fields include quantitative methods differing primarily with regard to their inclusion of temporal aspects and material efficiency potentials. Moreover, operations research methods such as multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) may alleviate the common contradictions which often exist between circularity metrics. This review concludes by suggesting guidelines for selecting quantitative methods most appropriate to a particular research question and making the argument that while there are a variety of existing methods, additional research is needed to combine existing methods and develop a more holistic approach for assessing sustainability impacts of CE strategies.

By 2050, the cumulative mass of end-of-life photovoltaic (PV) modules may reach 80 Mt globally. The impacts could be mitigated by module recycling, repair and reuse; however, previous studies of PV circularity omit the consideration of critical social factors. Here we used an agent-based model to integrate social aspects with techno-economic factors, which provides a more realistic assessment of the circularity potential for previously studied interventions that assesses additional interventions that cannot be analysed using techno-economic analysis alone. We also performed a global sensitivity analysis using a machine-learning metamodel. We show that to exclude social factors underestimates the effect of lower recycling prices on PV material circularity, which highlights the relevance of considering social factors in future studies. Interventions aimed at changing customer attitudes about used PV boost the reuse of modules, although used modules can only satisfy one-third of the US demand during 2020–2050, which suggests that reuse should be complemented by recycling.

The growing number of end-of-life (EOL) wind blades could further strain US landfills or be a valuable composite materials source, depending on stakeholders’ behaviors. Technical solutions based on circular economy (CE) principles have been proposed but are not guaranteed to solve the issue of EOL management. Transitioning to CE implies changing how business models, supply chains, and behaviors deal with products and waste. A spatially resolved agent-based modeling combined with a machine-learning metamodel shows that including behavioral factors is crucial to designing effective policies. Logistical barriers and transportation costs significantly affect the results: lowering blade shredding costs by a third before transportation makes EOL blades a source of valuable materials, decreasing the 2050 cumulative landfill rate below 50%. In another scenario, parameter settings simulating policy interventions aiming at boosting early adoption incites new social norms favorable to recycling, lowering the cumulative landfill rate below 10%.

The United States generates the most plastic waste of any country and is a top contributor to global plastic pollution. Multiple end‐of‐life strategies must be implemented to minimize environmental impacts and retain valuable plastic material, but it is challenging to compare options that generate products with different lifetimes and utilities. Herein, they present a material flow model equipped with consequential life cycle assessment, cost analysis, and a plastic circularity indicator that considers product quality and lifetime. The model is used to estimate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, circularity, and cost of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle mechanical downcycling to lower‐quality resin, closed‐loop glycolysis to food‐grade PET, upcycling to glass fiber‐reinforced plastic, and conversion to non‐plastic products (electricity, oil) on a United States economy‐wide basis for the year 2020. A brute force algorithm suggests that a combination of 68% glycolysis, 11% mechanical recycling, 6% upcycling, 9% landfilling, and 5% incineration can minimize the cost and GHG emissions and maximize the circularity of the current PET economy. However, uncertainty around transportation distances, materials recovery facility efficiencies, and recycling yields can result in different “optimal” pathway mixes. This flexible framework enables informed decision‐making to move toward a cost‐ and environment‐conscious circular economy for plastic.