Processing, Please wait...

  • Publisher Home
  • Home
  • 🔙 Back
  • 📚 Journals
    • ⚙️ IJIEC - Industrial Engineering Computations
    • 🌐 IJDNS - Data and Network Science
    • 🧪 CCL - Current Chemistry Letters
    • 💹 AC - Accounting
    • 🎯 DSL - Decision Science Letters
    • 🚛 USCM - Uncertain Supply Chain Management
    • 🏗️ JPM - Journal of Project Management
    • 🏥 HE - Healthcare Engineering
    • 📈 SCI - Scientometrica
    • 🔩 ESM - Engineering Solid Mechanics
    • 🌿 JFS - Journal of Future Sustainability
    • 💼 MSL - Management Science Letters
  • 📝 Submit Article
  • 📊 Statistics
  • 📋 About
    • 📄 About Us
    • 📰 Blog
    • 📢 News
    • 📧 Contact
  • 📺 Tutorial
  • Search:
  • Advanced Search

Growing Science » Management Science Letters » From industrial circularity to well-being: assessing the social efficiency of the circular economy in the EU

⭐ Highly Cited Articles

  • Jaya Algorithm
  • Rao Algorithm
  • TLBO Algorithm
  • ChatGPT and Blended Learning

Journals

  • IJIEC (804)
  • IJDS (992)
  • DSL (722)
  • ESM (434)
  • CCL (563)
  • JPM (350)
  • AC (567)
  • JFS (101)
  • MSL (2658)
  • USCM (1104)
  • HE (51)
  • SCI (51)

MSL Volumes

    • ▼ Volume 16 (21)
      • Issue 1 (6)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
    • ▼ Volume 15 (24)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (9)
    • ▼ Volume 14 (22)
      • Issue 1 (6)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
    • ▼ Volume 13 (27)
      • Issue 1 (7)
      • Issue 2 (8)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (7)
    • ▼ Volume 12 (33)
      • Issue 1 (6)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (13)
    • ▼ Volume 11 (251)
      • Issue 1 (36)
      • Issue 2 (39)
      • Issue 3 (40)
      • Issue 4 (40)
      • Issue 5 (29)
      • Issue 6 (27)
      • Issue 7 (20)
      • Issue 8 (12)
      • Issue 9 (8)
    • ▼ Volume 10 (448)
      • Issue 1 (24)
      • Issue 2 (25)
      • Issue 3 (24)
      • Issue 4 (25)
      • Issue 5 (26)
      • Issue 6 (26)
      • Issue 7 (25)
      • Issue 8 (27)
      • Issue 9 (27)
      • Issue 10 (30)
      • Issue 11 (33)
      • Issue 12 (30)
      • Issue 13 (30)
      • Issue 14 (30)
      • Issue 15 (30)
      • Issue 16 (36)
    • ▼ Volume 9 (208)
      • Issue 1 (16)
      • Issue 2 (14)
      • Issue 3 (11)
      • Issue 4 (12)
      • Issue 5 (12)
      • Issue 6 (16)
      • Issue 7 (16)
      • Issue 8 (16)
      • Issue 9 (16)
      • Issue 10 (16)
      • Issue 11 (19)
      • Issue 12 (20)
      • Issue 13 (24)
    • ▼ Volume 8 (119)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
      • Issue 5 (22)
      • Issue 6 (20)
      • Issue 7 (6)
      • Issue 8 (6)
      • Issue 9 (8)
      • Issue 10 (10)
      • Issue 11 (11)
      • Issue 12 (16)
    • ▼ Volume 7 (54)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
      • Issue 5 (5)
      • Issue 6 (5)
      • Issue 7 (4)
      • Issue 8 (4)
      • Issue 9 (4)
      • Issue 10 (4)
      • Issue 11 (4)
      • Issue 12 (4)
    • ▼ Volume 6 (74)
      • Issue 1 (9)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (6)
      • Issue 4 (7)
      • Issue 5 (6)
      • Issue 6 (6)
      • Issue 7 (8)
      • Issue 8 (6)
      • Issue 9 (5)
      • Issue 10 (5)
      • Issue 11 (5)
      • Issue 12 (5)
    • ▼ Volume 5 (129)
      • Issue 1 (15)
      • Issue 2 (10)
      • Issue 3 (10)
      • Issue 4 (12)
      • Issue 5 (14)
      • Issue 6 (14)
      • Issue 7 (8)
      • Issue 8 (8)
      • Issue 9 (11)
      • Issue 10 (8)
      • Issue 11 (9)
      • Issue 12 (10)
    • ▼ Volume 4 (387)
      • Issue 1 (34)
      • Issue 2 (30)
      • Issue 3 (34)
      • Issue 4 (42)
      • Issue 5 (33)
      • Issue 6 (43)
      • Issue 7 (42)
      • Issue 8 (40)
      • Issue 9 (39)
      • Issue 10 (20)
      • Issue 11 (18)
      • Issue 12 (12)
    • ▼ Volume 3 (426)
      • Issue 1 (40)
      • Issue 2 (47)
      • Issue 3 (40)
      • Issue 4 (40)
      • Issue 5 (27)
      • Issue 6 (50)
      • Issue 7 (51)
      • Issue 8 (30)
      • Issue 9 (24)
      • Issue 10 (25)
      • Issue 11 (25)
      • Issue 12 (27)
    • ▼ Volume 2 (365)
      • Issue 1 (51)
      • Issue 2 (32)
      • Issue 3 (40)
      • Issue 4 (44)
      • Issue 5 (42)
      • Issue 6 (52)
      • Issue 7 (53)
      • Issue 8 (51)
    • ▼ Volume 1 (70)
      • Issue 1 (10)
      • Issue 2 (15)
      • Issue 3 (20)
      • Issue 4 (25)

🔑 Keywords

Jordan(172)
Supply chain management(169)
Vietnam(154)
Customer satisfaction(124)
Performance(117)
Supply chain(114)
Service quality(101)
Artificial intelligence(101)
Competitive advantage(98)
Tehran Stock Exchange(94)
SMEs(94)
Sustainability(93)
optimization(88)
TOPSIS(85)
Trust(84)
Financial performance(84)
Job satisfaction(81)
Knowledge Management(80)
Genetic Algorithm(80)
Organizational performance(79)


» Show all keywords

✍️ Authors

Naser Azad(82)
Zeplin Jiwa Husada Tarigan(68)
Mohammad Reza Iravani(65)
Endri Endri(45)
Muhammad Alshurideh(42)
Hotlan Siagian(41)
Dmaithan Almajali(39)
Jumadil Saputra(36)
Muhammad Turki Alshurideh(35)
Ahmad Makui(33)
Sautma Ronni Basana(32)
Barween Al Kurdi(32)
Basrowi Basrowi(31)
Mohammad Khodaei Valahzaghard(30)
Haitham M. Alzoubi(30)
Hassan Ghodrati(30)
Shankar Chakraborty(29)
Ni Nyoman Kerti Yasa(29)
Sulieman Ibraheem Shelash Al-Hawary(28)
Prasadja Ricardianto(28)


» Show all authors

🌍 Countries

1. Algeria (52)
2. Angola (2)
3. Argentina (22)
4. Armenia (2)
5. Australia (52)
6. Austria (2)
7. Bahrain (26)
8. Bangladesh (58)
9. Belarus (4)
10. Belgium (3)
11. Benin (2)
12. Benin Republic (1)
13. Bhutan (1)
14. Bosnia and Herzegovina (1)
15. Botswana (8)
16. Brazil (40)
17. Brunei (1)
18. Bulgaria (1)
19. Burkina Faso (1)
20. Cameroon (1)
Total: 121 countries

Show all countries
Management Science Letters
ISSN 1923-9343 (Online) - ISSN 1923-9335 (Print)
Quarterly Publication
Volume 16 Issue 2 pp. 105-116, 2026

From industrial circularity to well-being: assessing the social efficiency of the circular economy in the EU Pages 105-116 PDF Download PDF

Authors: Gökçe Manavgat

📋 Author Affiliations:
Gökçe Manavgat1
1 Associate Professor, Toros University, Mersin, Türkiye
doi 10.5267/j.msl.2026.5.002
Crossref Source: CrossRef

🔑 Keywords: Industrial circularity, Social well-being, Sustainable integration, Efficiency, DEA

Abstract: This study investigates how effectively European Union Member States transform circular economy (CE) practices into social well-being, addressing a critical but underexplored dimension of circular transition research. While existing CE assessments primarily emphasize material flows, recycling performance, and resource productivity, far less is known about how circularity contributes to consumer-relevant and inclusive social outcomes. Using an output-oriented Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) framework under variable returns to scale, the study evaluates the social efficiency of CE across 27 EU countries, drawing on indicators of circular material use, material intensity, international recycling flows, self-perceived health, social inclusion, and real income. The results reveal substantial heterogeneity in social efficiency, showing that higher levels of circular activity do not automatically translate into stronger well-being outcomes for consumers. Countries such as Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Spain achieve full efficiency, indicating effective alignment between circularity practices, welfare structures, and socially inclusive outcomes. Conversely, several countries operate under decreasing returns to scale, suggesting that CE initiatives may dilute social effects and generate uneven distributional outcomes when implemented beyond their optimal capacity. Overall, the findings highlight the importance of policy coherence, institutional capability, and consumer-oriented governance in ensuring that circular economy strategies deliver inclusive and socially sustainable benefits.

How to cite this paper
APA: Manavgat, G. (2026). From industrial circularity to well-being: assessing the social efficiency of the circular economy in the EU. Management Science Letters, 16(2), 105-116.
Chicago/Turabian: Manavgat, G. 2026. "From industrial circularity to well-being: assessing the social efficiency of the circular economy in the EU." Management Science Letters 16, no. 2 (2026): 105-116.
AMA: Manavgat, G. From industrial circularity to well-being: assessing the social efficiency of the circular economy in the EU. Management Science Letters. 2026;16(2):105-116.

References
Ahmadi, H.B., Kusi-Sarpong, S., &Rezaei, J. (2017). Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method. Resource Conservation Recycling, 126, 99–106.
Alberich, J., et al. (2023). Circular economy transitions in the EU: Policy trends and national performance. Journal of Environmental Policy Studies, 12(2), 145–162.
Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078
Bianchini, A., Guarnieri, P., & Rossi, J. (2022). A framework to assess social indicators in a circular economy perspective. Sustainability, 14(13), 7970.
Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W. J., & Salomone, R. (2024). Transition to a sustainable circular society: more than just resource efficiency. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 4(1), 23-42.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
Chioatto, E., & Sospiro, P. (2023). EU regulatory pathways for accelerating the circular economy. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 12(1), 33–49.
D’Adamo, I., Favari, D., Gastaldi, M., & Kirchherr, J. (2024). Towards circular economy indicators: Evidence from the European Union. Waste Management & Research, 42(8), 670-680.
dos Santos Gonçalves, P. V., & Campos, L. M. (2022). A systemic review for measuring circular economy with multi-criteria methods. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(21), 31597-31611.
European Commission. (2019). The European Green Deal.
European Commission. (2020). Circular Economy Action Plan.
European Commission. (2022). New measures for circular transition.
European Parliament & Council. (2021). EU Climate Law.
European Parliament and Council. (2024). Directive (EU) 2024/1799 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on common rules promoting the repair of goods and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive (EU) 2019/771. Official Journal of the European Union, L 1799, 1–25.
Fura, B., Stec, M., & Miś, T. (2020). Statistical evaluation of the level of development of circular economy in European Union member countries. Energies, 13(23), 6401.
Geldermans, B., Tenpierik, M., & Luscuere, P. (2019). Human health and well-being in relation to circular and flexible infill design: assessment criteria on the operational level. Sustainability, 11(7), 1984.
Grybaitė, V., & Burinskienė, A. (2024). Assessment of circular economy development in the EU countries based on SAW method. Sustainability, 16(21), 9582.
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, conservation and recycling, 127, 221-232.
Liu, Y., et al. (2021). Expanding circular strategies from 3R to 6R. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280, 124–146.
Marković, M., Popović, Z., & Marjanović, I. (2023). Towards a circular economy: evaluation of waste management performance in European Union countries. Serbian journal of management, 18(1), 45-57..
Marques AC, Teixeira NM. Assessment of municipal waste in a circular economy: do European Union countries share identical performance? Clean Waste Syst. 2022;3: 100034. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. clwas. 2022. 100034.
Mazur-Wierzbicka, E. (2021). Indicators for assessing CE implementation. Economics & Environment, 8(2), 77–89.
Milanović, T., Savić, G., Martić, M., Milanović, M., & Petrović, N. (2022). Development of the waste management composite index using DEA method as circular economy indicator: the case of European Union countries. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 31(1), 771-784.
Mohammed, N., Khan, S., & Alam, M. (2021). Circular economy for sustainability. Sustainable Development Review, 29(3), 348–365.
Moreau, V., Sahakian, M., Van Griethuysen, P., & Vuille, F. (2017). Coming full circle: why social and institutional dimensions matter for the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 497-506.
Nazarko, J., Chodakowska, E., & Nazarko, Ł. (2022). Evaluating the transition of the European Union member states towards a circular economy. Energies, 15(11), 3924.
Nikonorova, M., Imoniana, J. O., & Stankeviciene, J. (2020). Analysis of social dimension and well-being in the context of circular economy. International Journal of Global Warming, 21(3), 299-316.
Petreca, B., Jewitt, C., Fotopoulou, A., Golmohammadi, L., O’Nascimento, R., Chamberlin, L., ... & Baurley, S. (2025). The wellbeing framework for consumer experiences in the circular economy of the textile industry. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1-14.
Potkány, M., Lesníková, P., Schmidtová, J., Musová, Z., & Neykov, N. (2025). Indicators of circular economy and their link to performance and competitiveness: multi-criteria analysis in the EU countries. Discover Sustainability, 6(1), 825.
Rađenović, Ž. J., & Rajić, M. N. (2024). Assessing Circular Economy performances of selected countries using MCDM methods: Promethee vs. CoCoSo. In U. Tanveer, S. Ishaq, T. Huy, & T. Hoang (Eds.), Navigating the circular age of a sustainable digital revolution (pp. 59–90). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-2827-9.ch003
Remeikienė, R., Gasparėnienė, L., & Bankauskienė, J. (2025). Assessment of the circular economy indicators in the EU Member States. Discover Sustainability, 6(1), 611.
Schröder, P., Lemille, A., & Desmond, P. (2020). Making the circular economy work for human development. Re-sources, Conservation and Recycling, 156, 104686.
Sharma, S., & Bangur, P. (2025). Circling to Wellness: Health Implications of Transitioning to a Circular Economy. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1-30.
Skare, M., Gavurova, B., & Rigelsky, M. (2024). Transforming power of research and development on inequality and well-being: a European Union perspective within the circular economy framework. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-16.
Štreimikienė, D., Bathaei, A., Baležentis, T., & Štreimikis, J. (2025). Multi-criteria decision analysis of Circular Economy performance in the Baltic States: a comparative evaluation. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 26(5), 1050-1070.
Tsalis, T., Stefanakis, A. I., & Nikolaou, I. (2022). A framework to evaluate the social life cycle impact of products un-der the circular economy thinking. Sustainability, 14(4), 2196.
Ūsas, J., Balezentis, T., & Streimikiene, D. (2025). Development and integrated assessment of the circular economy in the European Union: The outranking approach. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 38(1), 243-260.
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

📚 Journal: Management Science Letters | 📅 Year: 2026 | 📖 Volume: 16 | 📄 Issue: 2 | 👁️ Views: 144 | 📊 Crossref:

Related Articles:
  • A bibliometric survey of circular economy research: Analysis of 200 highly cited publications
  • A survey of the methods, aspects and trends of life insurance efficiency papers
  • Unlocking project SDGs in furniture manufacturing: The mediating role of green innovation resilience
  • Inventory control of deteriorating items: A review
  • Supply chain collaboration: A state-of-the-art literature review

📝 Ready to share your research?

Management Science Letters is accepting new submissions for upcoming issues. Join our community of authors and publish your work with us.

✓ Open access
✓ Rigorous peer review
✓ Fast publication
📤 Submit Your Manuscript →

📖 Author Guidelines

® 2010-2026 GrowingScience.Com