Systematic review categorizes circular economy assessment tools across twelve dimensions and three clusters, suggesting a systems perspective is essential for evaluating adoption.
As interest in transitioning to a circular economy ( CE ) is growing, CE readiness and maturity are becoming key topics. CE readiness reflects the preconditions to adopt CE practices, while CE maturity indicates the level of advancement in their implementation. Therefore, identifying, examining, and assessing the elements that shape CE readiness and maturity is essential to move toward a CE . This study leverages a systematic literature review to provide a critical overview of how CE readiness and CE maturity are assessed. In particular, the article first clarifies the difference between CE readiness and maturity, noting that these concepts are often used interchangeably despite their distinct meanings. Second, it critically summarizes approaches, frameworks, and tools for assessing CE readiness and maturity. Last, leveraging a thematic analysis, this study categorizes the 1003 items measuring CE readiness and maturity in 12 dimensions: organizational governance, human capital, product and business model innovation, technology and data, financing and economics, interorganizational relationships, production and distribution, product use, end‐of‐life, market and power dynamics, social indicators, and government policy and regulations. The 12 dimensions are grouped into three analytical clusters: firm‐level capabilities and organizational conditions, inter‐firm and value‐chain dynamics, and institutional and contextual conditions. The study links these clusters to different theoretical perspectives, arguing that no single theory sufficiently explains CE readiness and maturity and that a systems perspective is needed to integrate these complementary viewpoints. The study paves the way for more rigorous and epistemologically valid tools and highlights relevant gaps in the literature.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yolchuyev et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: