Citation: Wurster, S.; Reis, C.F.d.B.
Priority Products for Sustainability
Information and Recommendation
Software: Insights in the Context of
the EU’s Action Plan Circular
Economy. Sustainability 2022,14,
11951. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su141911951
Academic Editor: Fausto Cavallaro
Received: 16 July 2022
Accepted: 6 September 2022
Published: 22 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
Priority Products for Sustainability Information and
Recommendation Software: Insights in the Context of the EU’s
Action Plan Circular Economy
Simone Wurster 1,* and Cristina Fróes de Borja Reis 2
1Department of Innovation Economics, Technische Universität Berlin (TU Berlin), 10623 Berlin, Germany
2Center for Engineering, Modeling and Applied Social Sciences (CECS/UFABC), Alameda da Universidade
s/nº—Bairro Anchieta, São Bernardo do Campo 09606-045, SP, Brazil
*Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract:
The diffusion of sustainable products is a global objective, particularly reflected by the
UN’s vision of ensuring sustainable development. Mobilising the potential of product information’s
digitalization is an important topic in this context, particularly in the EU’s circular economy plan
CEAP. Cross-sector analyses on the need for digital sustainability recommendation systems and
related product-specific requirements do not yet exist.
Questions:
This article aims to deepen
the insight of information requirements and recommendation software to facilitate sustainability-
oriented product decisions based on three questions: (1) to identify products specifically requiring
four types of sustainability information, (2) to unveil needs for software that recommends sustainable
products, and (3) to specify the information it shall provide.
Method:
As part of the ConCirMy
recommendation system project, we conducted an exploratory survey among 134 sustainability
experts from 5 circular and bio-economy networks, mainly from Germany. The results show priority
products regarding four sustainability information needs and recommendation software, making
specific relations between European regulation and stakeholders’ interests visible. In addition, ten
factors influencing these needs and facilitating further product-related sustainability classifications
were unveiled.
Conclusions:
Our findings reflect the significance of CEAP’s priority products
regarding the need for sustainability information and provide conclusions for four target groups.
Keywords:
circular economy; bio-based; biobased; social sustainability; recommendation systems;
recycling; bioplastic; bioeconomy
1. Introduction
1.1. Sustainable Development and Information Technology
Sustainable development, specified by the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the
United Nations (UN SDGs), has become one of the 21st century’s key objectives [
1
,
2
], and
implementing the circular economy (CE) is a global concern [
3
]. Four figures show the need
for the CE illustratively. Resource extraction and processing are the reasons for about 50% of
global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and more than 90% of biodiversity loss and water
pollution. Consumption of materials such as biomass, fossil fuels, metals, and minerals
is expected to increase by 100% over the next 40 years and annual waste generation by
70% by 2050. Therefore, the UN seeks to ensure sustainable consumption and production
patterns [
4
]. Likewise, Europe aims to switch to sustainable, long-lasting products and
slow down the use and flow of resources through the economy [
5
]. Information technology
plays an essential role in this context, while digitalization’s potential is not yet exploited.
Therefore, mobilising the potential of product information’s digitalization, including so-
lutions such as digital passports, tagging, and watermarks [
5
,
6
], is an important goal of
the European Union (EU) and, similarly, of many additional countries outside Europe. A
summary of the considerations of digitalization in the EU’s New Circular Economy Action
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141911951 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 2 of 28
Plan of March 2020 is shown in Section 1.2. Given this need for action, we identified a gap
in the literature on sustainability and information systems: studies that focus on software
that recommends products based on sustainability characteristics.
This article is dedicated to the various needs for sustainability information and recom-
mendation software to support the circular economy, the bioeconomy, socially sustainable
products, and products addressing the SDGs with a broader scope. Based on a survey, spe-
cific needs and their causes are unveiled. Besides the article’s contribution to overcoming
the current research gap, it aims to motivate practitioners to make the relevant information
available, if necessary, supported by research and to encourage software engineers to
develop corresponding recommender software and platforms.
1.2. Literature Review and Research Gap
1.2.1. Sustainability Perspectives
Our article refers to products with four specific characteristics: ‘sustainable’ (in gen-
eral), ‘circular’, ‘socially sustainable’, and ‘bio-based’, whose perspectives and key aspects
are clarified in this section. According to the UN, sustainability refers to people, the planet,
and prosperity [
1
]. Likewise, ref. [
7
] defines sustainability as the ‘goal of sustainable
development which encompasses environmental, social and economic aspects, in which
the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their needs’. In particular, this includes ending poverty and other deprivations,
reducing inequality, and realizing economic growth combined with tackling climate change
and working to preserve oceans and forests internationally [
1
,
2
]. Sustainability can be
described by three pillars on environmental, social, and economic aspects. See, e.g., [
8
]. In
this context, ref. [
9
] provide an index with indicators on all three dimensions. However,
weights are missing, and a common score would be useful. In addition, the considerations
refer to company levels, not specific products. Usually, research in this area (also carried
out by [
10
]) presents a holistic approach for evaluating bio-based products, considering
the three sustainability pillars as in the European standard EN 16751. Ref. [
11
] shows the
industry’s condensed sustainability criteria and indicators for biobased products. Elements
of its environmental pillar include, e.g., criteria and indicators regarding climate protection
and air quality, water, soil, biodiversity, energy, and material resources; and waste.
Regarding social sustainability, ref. [
10
]present a comprehensiveoverviewof
14 indicators:
fair salary and competition; forced and child labour; food security; health and safety of
workers, local communities and users; feedback mechanisms; land use rights; economic
development; local employment; transparency; and equal opportunities. Other work
also includes, e.g., [
12
] with their social life cycle approach, ref. [
13
] regarding end-of-life
strategies, and [
14
], which nonetheless do not provide product-level but sector-related
information. Like [
11
], this article refers to a product as socially sustainable if the core
working standards of the International Labour Organization (ILO) are met in the product’s
value chain. These core working standards include elimination of forced labour; elimination
of child labour; prohibition against discrimination at the job site, and the principle of equal
pay for the same work, freedom of association, free collective bargaining, and the right
to collective agreements (see [
15
] for details). On this basis, ref. [
11
] provides three sets
of criteria and indicators on employee rights, working conditions, and living conditions.
Elements of its environmental pillar include, e.g., criteria and indicators regarding climate
protection and air quality, water, soil, biodiversity, energy and material resources, and
waste. Concerning economic sustainability, the set of criteria in [
11
] refers to fair business
practices while [
10
] also integrate the minimization of life cycle costs associated with the
entire value chain. Various contributions analyse sustainability in specific industries or
give guidance on particular sectors. See, for example, [
16
] on electronic products, [
17
,
18
]
on textiles, [
19
,
20
] on cars, and [
21
] on textiles and vehicles, supplemented by a rich source
base of contributions on electric vehicles’ batteries: see, e.g., [22].
From a different perspective, the circular economy is a powerful sustainability concept
influencing public policies. In this context, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a close
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 3 of 28
collaborator of the World Economic Forum, formulated in 2015 the now common CE
definition as ‘(an economy) that is restorative and regenerative by design and aims to keep
products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times’ [
23
,
24
].
The CE represents a production and consumption model in which materials and products
are shared, leased, reused, repaired, refurbished, and recycled for as long as possible, and
their life cycle is extended [
25
]. Various SDGs are addressed by the CE concept, especially
SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and SDG 12 (responsible consumption and
production), closely linked with SDG 6 (clean water), 8 (decent work), and 15 (life on
land) [
3
]. On this basis, the description ‘circular’ product refers to a product for which one
or more of the above-mentioned activities are practiced (as explained/defined in [
25
]). A
taxonomy of 55 circular economy indicators, including 20 micro-indicators, is provided
by [
26
]. Specific indicators on circular products are, for example, provided by the MCI [
27
]
and Madaster [28] (on buildings). Various indicators are also supplied by [10].
Another important sustainability concept is the bioeconomy, defined as ‘an emerging
paradigm under which the creation, development, and revitalization of economic systems
based on a sustainable use of renewable biological resources in a balanced way is rapidly
spreading globally’ [
29
]. However, the bioeconomy is not sustainable per se [
30
]. This
is mirrored by international research in various domains to maximize its contribution to
sustainable development. In particular, the bioeconomy aims to contribute to the above-
mentioned SDGs 6, 8, 11, and 12 and also to SDGs 2 (zero hunger), 3 (good health and
well-being), 7 (affordable and clean energy), and 9 (industry, innovation, and infrastruc-
ture), see [
31
]. In this context, bio-based products (products of the bioeconomy) are defined
as those made, wholly or in part, with resources of biological origin and can substitute
products traditionally made with fossil resources [
32
]. CEN [
11
] extends this definition
as follows: ‘The term “bio-based” means ‘derived from biomass’. Bio-based products
(bottles, insulation materials, wood and wood products, paper, solvents, chemical inter-
mediates, composite materials, et cetera) are products which are wholly or partly derived
from biomass’. The source adds: ‘It is essential to characterize the amount of biomass
contained in the product by for instance, its bio-based content or bio-based carbon content’.
Sustainability indicators of bio-based products are, for example, considered by [
10
,
11
]. In
this context, ref. [10] provides a case study of a hypothetical bio-based rigid packaging.
The EU Strategy for Plastics in the Circular Economy (COM(2018) 28 final) highlight
the importance of plastics in the CE specifically. In addition, the EU’s New Circular Econ-
omy Action Plan (CEAP) makes specific references to bio-based plastics and biodegradable
and compostable plastics. In the bioeconomy, plastics also play an important role with a
value-added of
€
3.48 billion in the EU, together with rubber (data EU27, 2019) [
33
]. Ac-
cording to market data from European Bioplastics and nova-Institute, global production
capacities for bioplastics will increase from around 2417 million tons in 2020 to approx-
imately
7593 million
tons in 2026 [
34
]. Its most important segments (starting with the
biggest) are packaging, consumer goods, textiles, agriculture & horticulture, automotive
& transport, coatings & adhesives, building & construction, and electrics & electronics;
see [
35
]. Figure 1illustrates how the four main sustainability perspectives and their key
aspects are linked in our research.
1.2.2. Priority Products for Sustainability Goals and Related Information Needs
The circular economy provides a role model for specifying priority products to imple-
ment SDG-oriented practices. As a significant starting measure, the European Commission
defined six priority products and sectors to implement sustainable circular economy prin-
ciples in 2014 (cf. [
36
], e.g., p. 23): packaging, food, electronic and electrical equipment,
transport, including the automotive industry, furniture, and, last but not least, buildings
and construction. Six years later, the EU’s New Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP)
specified seven key areas that proved to be essential for achieving the CE: electronics
and ICT, batteries and vehicles, packaging, plastics, textiles, construction industry and
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 4 of 28
buildings, and, food, water, and nutrients, see [
37
]. Likewise, Germany bundles activities
in its Standardization Roadmap Circular Economy, mirroring CEAP priorities.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 30
Figure 1. Sustainability perspectives and their key aspects considered in our research. Source: Own
elaboration based on texts [9,10,11], on general, social, circular, and bio-based sustainability infor-
mation.
1.2.2. Priority Products for Sustainability Goals and Related Information Needs
The circular economy provides a role model for specifying priority products to im-
plement SDG-oriented practices. As a significant starting measure, the European Com-
mission defined six priority products and sectors to implement sustainable circular econ-
omy principles in 2014 (cf. [36], e.g., p. 23): packaging, food, electronic and electrical equip-
ment, transport, including the automotive industry, furniture, and, last but not least,
buildings and construction. Six years later, the EU’s New Circular Economy Action Plan
(CEAP) specified seven key areas that proved to be essential for achieving the CE: elec-
tronics and ICT, batteries and vehicles, packaging, plastics, textiles, construction industry
and buildings, and, food, water, and nutrients, see [37]. Likewise, Germany bundles ac-
tivities in its Standardization Roadmap Circular Economy, mirroring CEAP priorities.
A further question is how stakeholders’ information needs and interests reflect the
CEAP’s political goals and which sustainability information needs and interests they have
beyond the priorities of this strategic EU plan. The importance of product information on
the perception of sustainable products is shown by [38,39,40], and the absence of details
on sustainability may pose a barrier to these products’ adoption. In addition, ref. [41]
highlights that the acceptance of information disclosure schemes depends on their credi-
bility and how the information is deployed. For example, the EU Ecolabel has strongly
promoted the uptake of some product categories [42]. Sustainable public procurement has
additional information needs regarding environmental and socially-friendly products, see
e.g., [43]. Likewise, businesses have many incentives to behave sustainably, e.g., for mar-
keting reasons, and are often even forced to do so by law, such as the German Lieferket-
tengesetz (Supply Chain Act). Last but not least, as one of the key stakeholders of Euro-
pean sustainable development, the European Commission not only specified priority
products but also identified the value of information as a critical accelerator for the circu-
lar economy in its territory. On this basis, it unveiled its plan to introduce a ‘digital prod-
uct passport’ early in 2023 containing information about the composition of goods on the
Figure 1.
Sustainability perspectives and their key aspects considered in our research. Source: Own
elaboration based on texts [
9
–
11
], on general, social, circular, and bio-based sustainability information.
A further question is how stakeholders’ information needs and interests reflect the
CEAP’s political goals and which sustainability information needs and interests they have
beyond the priorities of this strategic EU plan. The importance of product information
on the perception of sustainable products is shown by [
38
–
40
], and the absence of details
on sustainability may pose a barrier to these products’ adoption. In addition, ref. [
41
]
highlights that the acceptance of information disclosure schemes depends on their cred-
ibility and how the information is deployed. For example, the EU Ecolabel has strongly
promoted the uptake of some product categories [
42
]. Sustainable public procurement
has additional information needs regarding environmental and socially-friendly products,
see e.g., [
43
]. Likewise, businesses have many incentives to behave sustainably, e.g., for
marketing reasons, and are often even forced to do so by law, such as the German Lieferket-
tengesetz (Supply Chain Act). Last but not least, as one of the key stakeholders of European
sustainable development, the European Commission not only specified priority products
but also identified the value of information as a critical accelerator for the circular economy
in its territory. On this basis, it unveiled its plan to introduce a ‘digital product passport’
early in 2023 containing information about the composition of goods on the European
market to help boost their chances of being reused and recycled. The goal is to identify
the most important information about the makeup of each product so that users across the
supply chain can reuse it or treat it correctly at waste management facilities [5].
The individual interest in sustainability information varies. Reasons for this include,
e.g., different local and product-specific framework conditions, company priorities, and
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 5 of 28
implementations of Porter’s generic strategies, particularly regarding differentiation. An-
other example is public procurement, where various laws to consider social sustainability
criteria and ILO core working standards in tenders exist; see, e.g., [
43
]. Consumers provide
a third example with their different approaches to prioritize sustainability characteristics
and product prices in their consumption decisions [38–40].
1.2.3. Digital Sustainability Information and Recommendation Software
As described in Section 1, pursuing the SDGs needs to be linked with mobilizing
digitalization’s potential for product information, particularly in the EU’s CE strategy; see
Box 1.
Box 1.
Consideration of digitalization in the EU’s New Circular Economy Action Plan (highlights
made by the authors).
‘Building on the single market and the
potential of digital technologies
, the circular economy can
strengthen the EU’s industrial base’. (p. 4)
‘Innovative models based on a closer relationship with customers, mass customisation, (...) and
powered by
digital technologies
, such as the internet of things, big data, blockchain and artificial
intelligence, will not only accelerate circularity but also the dematerialisation of our economy and
make Europe less dependent on primary materials.’ (p. 4)
‘A whole new range of sustainable services, product-as-service models and
digital solutions
will
bring about a better quality of life, innovative jobs and upgraded knowledge and skills.’ (p. 5)
‘The Commission will consider establishing sustainability principles and other appropriate ways to
regulate the following aspects: (...) mobilising the
potential of digitalisation
of product informa-
tion, including solutions such as digital passports, tagging and watermarks’. (p. 7)
Recommender systems, also known as recommendation systems, provide many op-
portunities in this context. According to [
44
], they belong to the most promising techni-
cal opportunities to handle the current information overload and support users in their
decision-making processes. In recent years, they have gained ground and their use has
been extended to various application domains [45].
Recommender systems are software systems that provide ‘a single target user within
a single context with personalized recommendations of items such as goods, services or
information to guide the target user to find (the) most relevant items using ratings on
a single relevance criterion (i.e., overall) and where both users and items are in a single
domain’ [
46
]. On this basis, they represent ‘a specific type of advice-giving or decision
support system that guides users in a personalized way to interesting or useful objects in a
large space of possible options’ [
47
]. Specifically, their task is ‘to turn data on users and their
preferences into predictions of users’ possible future likes and interests’ [
48
]. They are uti-
lized where users come across many alternatives and information that must be discovered,
processed, and used [
45
]. As highlighted by Vinson et al. [
49
], they are most often artificial
intelligence (AI) systems that recommend ‘various products, services, articles, or social
connections to a user based on the user’s profile.’ As a specific variant [
50
] showed the
feasibility of mass customization recommender systems. As part of the ConCirMy project
(see
Sections 1.2.4 and 2.2
for details), this research explicitly focuses on recommendation
systems that also apply AI and mass customization where necessary.
1.2.4. Research Gap, Questions, and Hypothesis
A Web of Science analysis revealed a research gap regarding recommendation systems
for sustainable products and the Circular Economy in various disciplines, particularly miss-
ing systematic, cross-sectoral socio-economic analyses. Besides the work of [
45
] focusing
on industrial symbioses, the Web of Science provides only two more hits for the search
combination ‘recommender system’ and ‘circular economy’, which, however, refer again to
industrial symbioses [
51
] and waste [
52
] with a technical focus, not explicitly on specific
product groups. In the same way, the product-related gap was visible in the ten hits for
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 6 of 28
the search combination ‘recommender system’ and ‘sustain.’ The search combination with
‘bio-based’ and ‘biobased’ led to zero hits.
Nevertheless, practical, product-specific examples of sustainability-oriented recom-
mender systems exist. Digimind’s CirNet is an already existing technical solution. This
AI-based design platform explicitly serves the packaging industry to make packaging ready
to meet the demands for greater sustainability without sacrificing performance through
lightweighting, lifecycle analysis, and material comparisons. The AI component facili-
tates its advanced recommendations. Other platforms that mainly provide standardized
information are, particularly addressing public procurement, the German Kompass Nach-
haltigkeit [
53
] and WECOBIS [
54
]. Information platforms and software for sustainable prod-
ucts, in general, are considered by Zeng et al. [
55
] under the umbrella of ‘green information
systems’. Several sustainability software solutions—in particular, databases— exist already,
such as ecoinvent [
56
], Global LCA [
57
], and GaBi (‘Ganzheitliche Bilanzierung’) [
58
]. An-
other example is the circular economy software platform Madaster [
59
], which provides
the opportunity to create a material passport for buildings.
Various digitalization and data projects for the CE with a broad technical scope have
been funded by the German measure ReziProK (‘Resource-efficient circular economy—
Innovative product cycles). Examples are the projects ConCirMy (Configurator for the
Circular Economy), DIBICHAIN (digital mapping of circular systems by blockchain),
Di-Link (digital solutions for industrial plastic cycles), DiTex (on digital technologies as
enablers of a resource-efficient circular B2B textile economy, also including the development
of digital product passports), EffizientNutzen (data-based business models for cascade use
and extended product use of electronic products), PERMA (Platform for efficient resource
utilisation in the furniture and furnishing industry), and EIBA; see [
60
]. EIBA stands for
sensory acquisition, automated identification, and evaluation of old parts based on product
data and information about previous deliveries. The project works with digitalization and
AI to support the identification of products and to equip products with appropriate parts
with suitable characteristics [
61
]. In contrast to EIBA, this article refers to customized prod-
uct recommendations based on the users’ sustainability preferences, not only to technical
product matching. The products’ sustainability characteristics are at the centre.
Besides the ReziProK projects, which all started in 2019, a consortium led by acatech
announced the project Battery Pass in April 2022 [
62
]. Other examples of sustainability
information systems and platforms with different sustainability foci include the Biokunst-
stofftool [
63
], the former European OpenBio project’s database with bio-based products [
64
],
and CE trading platforms such as CirPlus. There are also activities regarding sustainability
and digitalization on the international standardization level.
An example is a current standardization project on a product circularity data sheet at
the international standardization organization ISO. Various additional practical measures
have been conducted on a global level. However, cross-sector analyses, which allow for
systematic sector comparisons on the need for recommender systems, have been missing so
far. Specifically, scientific publications on product-specific requirements for sustainability
recommender software do not yet exist, reflecting the newness of these topics. This article
aims to close this gap as part of the ReziProK project ConCirMy, which develops an AI-
based sustainability recommendation system capable of mass customization with car tyres
as a first application. It also initiated the development of an open data exchange format for
sustainability data. On this basis, the analysis shall show additional application areas for
such software. Three questions were raised based on the gaps shown above: For circular
economy and bioeconomy experts, which products require sustainability information
(Q1) and related recommendation software (Q2)? Which specific types of sustainability
information are required (Q3)? As a general hypothesis related to the three answers, the
sustainability perspectives of the respondents are expected to be in line with CEAP’s seven
key areas, presented in Section 2.2.
The answers shall stimulate the development of product life cycle-oriented recommen-
dation software and, consequently, facilitate sustainability-oriented decisions in the various
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 7 of 28
product life cycle stages with the help of such software. They shall also support future
work with digital product passports and, generally speaking, promote the realization of
the SDGs. The material and methods to answer the research questions are described in
Section 2. Section 3presents the survey with experts. This broader contribution is discussed
in Section 4, followed by conclusions in Section 5.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Application of an Exploratory Survey Research Method
This article aims to unveil sustainability information needs and to deepen the re-
search on software for sustainability recommendations to support the circular economy, the
bioeconomy, socially sustainable products, and products addressing the SDGs in general.
Specifically, it aims to deepen the insight into priority products for sustainability informa-
tion and the characteristics of the specific information needs. Exploratory research methods
were chosen for this purpose. See [65,66] regarding their application in social science.
To consider the two physical product characteristics ‘circular’ and ‘bio-based’ ap-
propriately, the views of experts from the circular and bioeconomy should be analysed
specifically. Initially, a series of expert interviews was planned to provide the information.
An in-depth analysis showed however that a limited number of interviews would not
sufficiently answer the research questions. Therefore, an online survey was organized
to reach a bigger target group. Via this survey, experts were asked explicitly about the
need for sustainability information and software support for sustainable product selection
decisions, which would allow us to understand if the initial hypothesis on the similarity to
CEAP was correct.
To address Q1, the survey had a targeted question to identify the most important
products for which specific sustainability information is needed from experts’ point of view.
Four aspects were covered by separate sub-questions: sustainability in general, circular
economy aspects, social sustainability, and issues related to using renewable materials
for bio-based products. For each sub-question, specific classes of information needs were
created, comprising at least two responses with the same meaning. If a product class was
created for the answers to one part of this fourfold question and was also visible in single
answers on other sub-questions, the figure was modified accordingly to provide a broader
view of this product group’s information needs. An example provides the class ‘toys’. The
answers not only show a need for circular economy-related information on toys but also
included single mentions of this topic in the responses to all the other sub-questions on
sustainability-related information needs. Another observation was that participants often
entered several products in a single-entry box. The evaluation took this into account by
counting all products separately. To address question Q2, the participants were asked for
which products it would be helpful to have recommendation software with suggestions on
product variants. They could specify up to three products.
To specify the information needs described by research question Q3, the survey pro-
vided nine options for determining sustainability information that the software should
provide for developing, producing, or purchasing the selected products. Two important
answer options were ‘Other’ and ‘Depending on the types of products, different types of
sustainability information should be given.’ On this basis, various helpful inputs were
collected, leading to two tables in Section 3. Details on the survey’s content are shown in
Table 1and Appendix A.
The survey was available in German and English and intended to receive the answers
of at least 100 experts.
2.2. Survey Participants
The survey was distributed via five expert networks of the ConCirMy project and four
broader expert networks in the circular and bio-economy. Specifically, it was disseminated
via the networks of ConCirMy and ReziProK, among experts of Germany’s Standardisation
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 8 of 28
Roadmap Circular Economy, DECHEMA’s bioeconomy network, and EuBio-Net (see
Figure 2).
Table 1. Content of the survey.
Introduction
•Occupation of the participant
•Familiarity with the circular economy and the bioeconomy
•Product segments for which sustainability information is required
Software to support sustainable product selection decisions
•
Products with the attractiveness of a software system that suggests products or components
based on the sustainability preferences of the users
•Sustainability information that the software system should provide
•Products with a need for software that proposes bio-based materials, components,
or products
•
Market segments of bioplastics in need of software systems that suggest bio-based materials,
components, or products
•Further proposals for software development to support the development, production,
purchase, and use of sustainable products
Additional information on the participants
•Type of organization, possible SME status, industry affiliation
•Country of residence
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 30
To specify the information needs described by research question Q3, the survey pro-
vided nine options for determining sustainability information that the software should
provide for developing, producing, or purchasing the selected products. Two important
answer options were ‘Other’ and ‘Depending on the types of products, different types of
sustainability information should be given.’ On this basis, various helpful inputs were
collected, leading to two tables in Section 3. Details on the survey’s content are shown in
Table 1 and Appendix A.
Table 1. Content of the survey.
Introduction
• Occupation of the participant
• Familiarity with the circular economy and the bioeconomy
• Product segments for which sustainability information is required
Software to support sustainable product selection decisions
• Products with the attractiveness of a software system that suggests products or com-
ponents based on the sustainability preferences of the users
• Sustainability information that the software system should provide
• Products with a need for software that proposes bio-based materials, components, or
products
• Market segments of bioplastics in need of software systems that suggest bio-based
materials, components, or products
• Further proposals for software development to support the development, produc-
tion, purchase, and use of sustainable products
Additional information on the participants
• Type of organization, possible SME status, industry affiliation
• Country of residence
The survey was available in German and English and intended to receive the answers
of at least 100 experts.
2.2. Survey Participants
The survey was distributed via five expert networks of the ConCirMy project and
four broader expert networks in the circular and bio-economy. Specifically, it was dissem-
inated via the networks of ConCirMy and ReziProK, among experts of Germany’s Stand-
ardisation Roadmap Circular Economy, DECHEMA’s bioeconomy network, and EuBio-
Net (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Groups of experts involved in the survey: research projects’ samples and their main top-
ics.
Figure 2.
Groups of experts involved in the survey: research projects’ samples and their main topics.
1.
Experts of ConCirMy core expert network: As described in Section 1.2.4, ConCirMy
is a circular economy research project funded by the German Federal Ministry of
Education and Research. Its partners established an extensive network of circular
economy experts, including, e.g., circular economy lecturers and speakers at national
Circular economy research workshops. ConCirMy’s network also includes bioecon-
omy researchers and those with circular-bioeconomic expertise, e.g., expressed by
EU-level research.
2.
ReziProK experts: With the research concept ‘Resource-efficient circular economy’
(ReziProK), the German ministry BMBF supports the transformation of the German
economy from a linear economy to a resource-efficient circular economy. A total of
€150 million
was dedicated to be used to fund new technologies and services, design
concepts, and business models for the circular economy. The first funding measure,
“Resource-efficient circular economy—innovative product cycles (ReziProK),” shall en-
able new business models, design concepts or digital technologies for closed product
cycles. See [
67
] for details. The project RessWInn (Networking and transfer project for
the BMBF funding measure “Resource-efficient recycling management—innovative
product cycles [
67
]) is entrusted with supportive networking and transfer measures
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 9 of 28
for these 25 ReziProK projects. On this basis, it helped to distribute the survey among
ReziProK scientists.
3.
Experts of Germany’s Standardization Roadmap Circular Economy of DIN, DKE, and
VDI. These persons passed an initial screening process at DIN and are regarded as
recognized circular economy representatives in Germany.
4.
DECHEMA bioeconomy network: DECHEMA is Germany’s expert network for
chemical engineering and biotechnology. As a non-profit professional society, it
represents these fields in science, industry, politics, and the general public. DECHEMA
promotes scientific and technical exchange among experts from different disciplines
and consolidates the know-how of over 5800 individual and sustaining members,
including a sub-group in the bioeconomy.
5.
EuBioNet: The European Bioeconomy Network (EuBioNet) is a proactive alliance of
108 EU-funded projects and initiatives dealing with bioeconomy promotion, commu-
nication, and support. The main goal is to maximise the efforts, increasing knowledge
sharing, networking, mutual learning, and coordination of joint activities and events.
The survey was conducted from 30 March to 7 May 2022. Finally, 134 experts partici-
pated. Data minimization was strictly practiced during the study. No personal data, e-mail
addresses, etc., were collected. However, participants could send individual messages
outside the survey indicating an interest in the results. The survey administration received
numerous e-mails communicating this interest. Most senders have Ph.D. degrees, are
professors, or are Ph.D. candidates. On this basis, impressive additional information on the
survey participants could be gained. Table 2shows the participant’s occupation, primarily
in research and development. Another significant group is entrusted with management
tasks. The table also provides information on the type of organization. In this regard, it
shows data collected at the end of the survey with a lower response rate. The table shows a
balanced composition of research organisations and company representatives, particularly
in manufacturing, construction, and trade. In addition, they represent various other types
of enterprises such as automotive suppliers, consulting and chemicals companies, services
providers, mechanical engineering companies, and companies from the recycling and
packaging industry.
Table 2. Background information on the participants.
Occupation Type of Organization
R&D 45%
University or research institution
41%
Other 24% Company 40% *
Management 19% NGO 6%
Marketing 4% Gov., public authority/agency 6%
No answer 4% Other 5%
Production 2% Industry association 1%
Admin./accounting 1%
Distribution 1%
n = 134 n = 80 **
* 17.5% SME, 17.5% larger companies, 5% no information on firm size, ** lower response rate because the question
was asked at the end of the survey.
Seventy-eight participants noted their place of residence, including 74 people from
Germany, two from Spain, one from Italy, and one from Bolivia. Therefore, the study mainly
represents German experts’ views. Initially, they were asked to indicate their familiarity
with the circular economy and bioeconomy. In each case, five response categories were
provided. The vast majority of participants is very familiar with the circular economy.
Regarding the bioeconomy, there is more variance, while medium familiarity with this
topic dominates.
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 10 of 28
3. Results
3.1. Products Characterised by Specific Needs for Sustainability Information
Information was collected on products linked with general sustainability information
needs and information needs on circular economy, social sustainability, and
bio-based characteristics.
In response to the open question about which products sustainability information is
needed in general, the participants referred to a wide range of products. The answers were
ordered and classified, as shown in Figure 3’s first column. As a result, 22 product classes
with a need for general sustainability information were developed. As shown in Figure 3,
the analysis of the additional answers led to five more categories. The most frequently
mentioned products include food products, textiles & clothing, and electronic & electrical
products, followed by packaging and building products. In addition, the second largest
category in the figure, ‘miscellaneous’, refers to various other products presented in Table 3.
Multiple Table 3entries refer to energy topics, reflecting environmental concerns and
current tensions in global energy markets. Other products include, for example, paints and
varnishes, cleaning products, smartphones, and tyres.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 30
Figure 3. Products with a need for sustainability information, according to the interviews.
Figure 3. Products with a need for sustainability information, according to the interviews.
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 11 of 28
Table 3.
Overview of other products with a need for sustainability information according to
the interviews.
Sustainability in General Circular Econ. Aspects Social Sustainability Bio-Based Variants
Energy-related
- All products (p.) with
energy-intensive production
(e.g., steel, plastics)
- All p. with energy-intensive
production (suggestion as
above but without examples)
- Energy sources
- Energy storage for gases
and liquids
- P. made from rare raw
materials, with a high energy
input or high hazard potential
- Heating & electricity in
buildings
- Turbines
Miscellaneous
- (All with) rare and precious
raw materials
- Aircrafts
- All recyclable products
- All end-consumer p.
- Basic products
- Cleaning Products
- Colours/varnishes
- EEE (not explained)
- Everything, especially dealing
with hazardous substances
and resources
- Facilities
- Fungible products
- High-impact products
- Multimedia
- P. that increase resource
efficiency (heat pumps, etc.)
- Smartphones
- Sports
- Tyres
- If there is a risk to biodiversity
and health, everything that
comes into contact with
the environment
Energy-related
- All products that are now
disposed of as residual
waste energetically
- Turbines
- Wind turbines
Miscellaneous
- Aircrafts
- All consumer and
capital goods
- All end consumer products
- B2B products
- Capital goods
- Cement
- Convenience
- Crystal-made products
mistaken for glass
- Fungible products
- Gardening
- GRP (glass fibre reinforced
plastic) components
- Household goods
- Housing
- Industrial products with a
long lifetime
- Kitchen
- Liquid reservoirs
- Machines
- Materials used in combination
- Metal products
- Multimedia products
- Paper
- Particularly short-lived
products and products with
high material
value/rare materials
- Products relevant for
public procurement
- Slow Moving Consumer
Goods (SMCG)
- Smartphones
- Steel
Energy-related
- Energy sources
Miscellaneous
- All goods that are traded
globally, i.e., have global and
highly ramified supply chains
- All p. imported from third
countries outside the EU
- Building
- Capital goods
- Cars and accessories
- Consumables with
high quantities
- Cosmetic products
- EEE
- Everything specifically dealing
with hazardous substances
and resources
- Healthcare
- Industrial products
- Jewellery products
- Nutraceuticals
- P. of global markets
- P. with a high proportion of
manual work
- P. with complex supply chains
- P. with risk materials from the
Global South
- Raw material
intensive products
- Semi-finished metal p.
- Shoes
- Smartphones
- SMCG
- - P. recycled from waste that
create jobs in the waste
management sector
Energy-related
- Energy sources
Miscellaneous
- Additives
- B2C products (Fast Moving
Consumer Goods -FMCGs that
are recycled)
- Chemicals
- Cleaning agents
- Disposable products
- Household goods
- Polymer products
- SMCG
Note: All entries in the table and similar tables or figures of this article are translated.
For the respondents, the most critical products needing information on circular econ-
omy are, according to Figure 3, packaging, electronic & electrical products, and textiles
& clothing—showing a strong relationship with CEAP key priorities. A wide variety of
individual mentions were grouped in the category ‘miscellaneous.’ Further information
on this group is provided in Table 3. According to the table, the other information refers,
e.g., to relevant products for public procurement, airplanes, and wind turbines. Further
explanations emphasized, for example, the importance of information on products from
rare raw materials and energy-intensive production. The comparison with the findings
for sustainability information in general indicates that different products are prioritised
for the various dimensions of sustainability information. For example, food is the most
important category with information needs on general sustainability aspects but was only
mentioned once concerning information needs on circular economy aspects. This finding
will be explored further with the support of the results in the following sub-sections.
Regarding social sustainability, participants referred to ten product groups needing
the provision of sustainability information. According to Figure 3, textiles & clothing, food,
and electronic & electrical products were mentioned most often. Combining the data for
all topics, we see the perceived importance of textiles and clothing’s social sustainability
compared with other information on textiles’ sustainability.
The additional food category ‘specific agri-food products and coffee’ includes the
entries ‘coffee’ (2 times), ‘certain vegan products like soy and quinoa’, ‘bananas’, ‘com-
modities value chain (chocolate, coffee, and other raw materials needed for industrially
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 12 of 28
processed food)’, and ‘agri-food products’. A particular category is also raw materials,
which could only be created for the responses to the open question on the need for social
sustainability information. Specific contributions include, for example: ‘raw materials
sourced from countries with lower standards than in the EU’, ‘origin of raw materials from
developing/emerging countries’, ‘mineral raw materials from mining’, and ‘critical raw
materials, e.g., Lithium.’ The participants also made a special reference to workers’ needs:
‘Products made from raw materials where working conditions could be unsafe’. The state-
ment ‘products with a high proportion of manual labour’, recorded under ‘miscellaneous’,
also made a special reference to labour aspects. The answers summarized by the category
‘miscellaneous’ are shown in Table 3. The product origin was also a matter of concern.
The participants call for more information on social sustainability, e.g., on products from
global and complex supply chains, products ‘with risk materials from the global south’,
and ‘products from third countries outside the EU’.
Products for which information on bio-based aspects is required cover twelve areas,
according to Figure 3and Table 3, starting with packaging, plastics, and food. Compared
with the answers to the previous questions, the number of other products is the lowest.
Examples of these other products include chemicals and additives. Interestingly, cleaning
products, paints, and varnishes were not mentioned again. Possibly, participants regarded
mentioning them in the broader context of sustainability information in general as sufficient.
An interesting observation is that the number of entries per bar on the 2nd to 4th figure is
sometimes higher than on the first one.
3.2. Products Characterised by Specific Needs for Software to Support Sustainable Decisions and
Drivers of the Need for Information
3.2.1. Relevant Products
The sustainability of products is essential in all life cycle stages, for example, in prod-
uct development, manufacturing, and purchasing decisions. Software systems can provide
customised information for this. To address research question Q2, the participants could
specify up to three products. Figure 4shows the answers, which are also in line with
CEAP. According to the respondents, electronic & electrical products and components,
textiles & clothing,
food, and miscellaneous products, dominate the 1st and 2nd ranks.
Food, textiles, & clothing, and ‘miscellaneous’ were also most often mentioned in the
3rd entry
box. In addition, the figure shows the total number of mentions. Again, elec-
tronic & electrical products and components, textiles & clothing, and food are in the lead.
Compared with Figure 3’s bars for sustainability in general, Figure 4also shows the same
top-3 priorities
, including electronic & electrical products, textiles & clothing, and food,
although in another order. All results together stress the importance of the three product
groups regarding information and recommendation software. The various explanations for
the top-3 priorities in Section 3.2.2 stress their importance.
3.2.2. Drivers of the Need for Information
In the next step, the participants were asked to describe why software is important to
support sustainability-oriented decisions regarding these particular products.
As Table 4shows, the needs for software vary. Frequently mentioned reasons include,
e.g., energy aspects, high sales quantities, and the fact that a product is a consumer product.
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 13 of 28
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 30
Figure 4. Products with a need for sustainability recommendation software. Note: examples for the
clustering: Electronic & electrical products, components: e.g., ‘Electrical appliances’, ‘electronic ap-
pliances’, ‘electronic components’, ‘household appliances’, ‘white goods’, Textiles, clothing: ‘tex-
tiles’, ‘clothing’, ‘textile products’, Food: e.g., ‘food’, ‘nourishment’, Building products: e.g., ‘Build-
ing materials’, ‘Building materials’, ‘Roofing materials’, Vehicles: e.g., ‘cars’, ‘passenger cars’, ‘motor
vehicles’, Packaging: e.g., ‘Packaging’, ‘Packaging, ICT: e.g., ‘IT’, ‘Computer, Miscellaneous: e.g., ‘all
products for which SCOPE 1-3 emissions are recorded’, Furniture: e.g., ‘Möbel’, ‘Furniture, Instal-
lations (building, energy, heating) e.g., ‘Energy installations’, ‘Heating, solar installations, Heating,
solar systems etc’., Travel & Mobility: ‘mobility’, ‘travel’, Energy: e.g., ‘energy’, ‘electricity, Plastics:
e.g., ‘Plastics’, ‘Plastics for housings of industrial products (e.g., converters, control electronics…)’,
Buildings: ‘Buildings’, ‘Structures’, ‘real estate’, Batteries e.g., ‘Batteries from rare raw materials’,
‘Battery system’., Cosmetics: e.g., ‘Products of the cosmetics industry’, ‘Cosmetics’, Consumer
goods: ‘Consumer goods’, ‘Non-food consumer goods’.
3.2.2. Drivers of the Need for Information
In the next step, the participants were asked to describe why software is important
to support sustainability-oriented decisions regarding these particular products.
As Table 4 shows, the needs for software vary. Frequently mentioned reasons in-
clude, e.g., energy aspects, high sales quantities, and the fact that a product is a consumer
product.
0 10203040
Consumer goods
Batteries
Buildings
Plastics
Energy
Travel and mobility
Plants (buildings, energy)
Cosmetics
ICT
Furniture
Packaging
Building products
Vehicles
Food
Miscellaneous
Textiles and clothing
Electronic & electrical products, components
1st suggestion 2nd suggestion 3rd suggestion
Figure 4.
Products with a need for sustainability recommendation software. Note: examples for
the clustering: Electronic & electrical products, components: e.g., ‘Electrical appliances’, ‘electronic
appliances’, ‘electronic components’, ‘household appliances’, ‘white goods’, Textiles, clothing: ‘tex-
tiles’, ‘clothing’, ‘textile products’, Food: e.g., ‘food’, ‘nourishment’, Building products: e.g., ‘Building
materials’, ‘Building materials’, ‘Roofing materials’, Vehicles: e.g., ‘cars’, ‘passenger cars’, ‘motor
vehicles’, Packaging: e.g., ‘Packaging’, ‘Packaging, ICT: e.g., ‘IT’, ‘Computer, Miscellaneous: e.g., ‘all
products for which SCOPE 1-3 emissions are recorded’, Furniture: e.g., ‘Möbel’, ‘Furniture, Instal-
lations (building, energy, heating) e.g., ‘Energy installations’, ‘Heating, solar installations, Heating,
solar systems etc’., Travel & Mobility: ‘mobility’, ‘travel’, Energy: e.g., ‘energy’, ‘electricity, Plastics:
e.g., ‘Plastics’, ‘Plastics for housings of industrial products (e.g., converters, control electronics
. . .
)’, Buildings: ‘Buildings’, ‘Structures’, ‘real estate’, Batteries e.g., ‘Batteries from rare raw materials’,
‘Battery system’., Cosmetics: e.g., ‘Products of the cosmetics industry’, ‘Cosmetics’, Consumer goods:
‘Consumer goods’, ‘Non-food consumer goods’.
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 14 of 28
Table 4.
Selected product-specific explanations on the need for software-based sustainability infor-
mation.
1. Selected reasons for the top-ranked categories.
General information on SMCG and complex products, including e.g., electrical appliances
Energy aspects
•‘The size of household appliances determines their energy consumption (comment on complex products such as household
appliances (washing machines, refrigerators . . . ))’
Consumer products
•
‘In SMCG, the software can support [selection processes], as the selection of SMCG often follows specific, non-path-depended
processes (Internet research, conversation among family or friends, etc.). Where it is not helpful: FMCG, as their selection is
intuitive and ‘path-depended.”
Electronic & electrical products, components
Energy aspects
•‘High sales, strong focus on energy efficiency.’
Modularity
•‘Use of modular or less modular equipment, etc.’
•‘(Relevant questions are:) Are there other modular products? Can I buy spare parts later?’
•
‘Because there could probably be greater differences in sustainability for these products, e.g., due to modular or less modular
devices, etc.’
High sales quantities
•‘High sales, strong focus on energy efficiency’ (see above)
Consumer products
•‘These are complex products (for consumers) (...). Here, software-based decision support can be of great added value.’
Various
•‘Those who are very interested in (these) devices inform themselves about the selection online anyway, and the purchase
usually also takes place online.’
Textiles/clothing
Consumer products
•
‘End consumers can make the biggest impact with their purchasing decisions. (...) There is an urgent need to focus more on
sustainable actions.’
•
‘With clothes in general, I think there is a strong trend towards sustainability when H&M already offers to bring back clothes
for recycling. (...)’
Various
•
‘Because there could probably be greater differences in sustainability for these products, e.g., through the use of organic cotton
/ conventional cotton, different dyestuffs, etc.’
Food
High sales quantities
•‘Quick comparability, high quantities, frequent purchase.’
•‘Products with high sales figures among private customers.’
Various
•‘(...) Especially in the case of food, information is available but often hardly readable.’
2. Selected reasons for the other categories.
General information on SMCG and complex products, including cars
Energy aspects
•See line on SMCG in this table’s section 1
Consumer products
•See line on SMCG in this table’s section 1
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 15 of 28
Table 4. Cont.
Cars
Various
•‘The use phase of the products is lenghty (several years), and thus the impact on the entire life cycle is high.’
•‘Sustainability depends on many individual parameters (frequency of use, mileage, ...).’
Building materials
High sales quantities
•‘These products are used in large quantities and have a strong environmental impact.’
Various
•
‘The products mentioned have a big sustainability footprint. Therefore, sustainability should be increasingly considered here
in purchasing decisions.’
•‘Due to the large number and complexity of approvals and properties.’
Furniture
Various
•‘Because it has a huge use of computer-aided design (CAD) within its design.’
•‘High diversity of possible variants (...)’
•‘Until now, there is little information on sustainability aspects in the furniture industry for the customer.’
3. Supplementary explanations on products mentioned by individuals.
Smartphones
•‘The products must meet or be adapted to individual needs. This is not only a question of supply but also of demand. Let’s
take a mobile phone as an example. There are very simple card phones for simple conversations or smartphones with the
processing power of a PC. One can hardly determine which device is “better”. It is a question of needs and demands. But you
can compare criteria: price, functions, user-friendliness, and much more. It is similar to leisure equipment and prostheses.
These are products with a high degree of customisability.’
Outdoor products
•
‘(...) because most people who buy branded outdoor products like to be in nature and thus have a connection to nature and
their environment. (...) If further criteria were transparently disclosed here, this would undoubtedly be met with approval.
However, with many outdoor products, there is already more transparency than usual. (...)’
3.3. Specific Information Needs
To specify the information needs described by research question Q3, the survey de-
termined the sustainability information that the software should provide. According to
Figure 5, information on end-of-life options, life cycle assessment (LCA), and social aspects
are indicated in particular.
The statement that the software should provide different types of sustainability infor-
mation depending on the product type, selected by 42 participants, was specified by various
descriptions. Participants indicated that differences exist regarding suitable sustainability
information and indicators. According to Table 5, ten specific differences were unveiled.
Table 5. Factors influencing the need for products’ sustainability information.
1. General differences depending on the material used
•‘Depending on the material, e.g., (if I want to use) plastic (as thermoplastic, elastomer, duromer, glass or carbon fibre
reinforced) or metals (e.g., steel or aluminum or gold from electrical contacts or rare earths in magnets) and recycle them later.
You cannot achieve meaningful results with “one” sustainability information.’
•‘Depending on the value chain, products can be characterised by different challenges. E.g., steel has high environmental
impacts, i.e., life cycle emissions would be (...) interesting. Furthermore, steel can be recycled. So the recycling share would
be relevant. In contrast, recycling plays a minor role in cement.’
2. Type of target group: ‘Product types are subject to different uses and requirements. For example, textiles are used in the
consumer sector and are usually recycled after use. Machines are used in industry, regularly maintained, resold if necessary,
cannibalised at the end, and reused in individual parts.’
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 16 of 28
Table 5. Cont.
3. Different material intensity: ‘The purchase of a car is different from the purchase of a drill: For example, the effect on third
parties plays a greater role with a car than with a drill. Communication should be tailored to this. (...).’
4. Different energy intensity
•‘(...) Consumption data is relevant for long-used and energy-intensive products (e.g., hoover, washing machine).’
•‘Products with similar energy input, where the energy origin is more in focus: Different depths of sustainability information
should be available. A traffic light system is sufficient for simple estimates, e.g., for certain product classes, the energy input is
similar. For comparison (e.g., within the class “cement”), an assessment of the origin of the energy required is sufficient.’
5. Different relevance of circularity
•‘Circularity may not be the major impact.’
•‘Depending on the product, certain information is helpful and important (recycled content in mineral building materials),
while in others, it can be misleading or give the wrong impression. E.g., recycled content in clothing/textiles can suggest that
the product is automatically more environmentally friendly/sustainable. This can encourage greenwashing.’
6. Different relevance of recyclability
•In general: ‘With food, for example, recyclability is not relevant in the same way as with textiles.’
•
Specifically, long-life versus short-life products: ‘For short-life products, possible recyclability and overall end-of-life options
have greater weight.’ (See also the next bullet point.)
7. Different influences on social sustainability
•‘In the case of clothing, for example, information on working conditions during production must be assessed differently
compared with technical products because of the higher proportion of manual labour. For batteries, using raw materials and
mining conditions play a greater role.’
•‘The three pillars of sustainability (...) are of different relevance across sectors (...). E.g., in the food and clothing sectors,
working conditions seem to be a particularly urgent concern. At the same time, the high investment volumes in building
technology put the economic aspect in the centre.’
•
‘E.g., textiles: social share in manufacturing and raw material extraction (cotton, for example), resource use (waste, pollution)
in material production (dyeing, finishing), chemical use (fertilisers, pesticides, dyes)’.
8.
Different relevance of packaging: ‘For textiles, for example, information about packaging does not play as big a role (anymore)
as it does for food.’
9. Different relevance of biobased variants: ‘Depending on the product type, different information is necessary (e.g., textiles
versus ICT), so information on biobased shares, for example, is not relevant for all products.’
10.
Use of rare raw materials: ‘With smartphones, the production and recycling/refurbish possibilities are crucial.’
3.4. Specific Requirements in the Context of Bioplastics
Due to its relevance to the circular and the bio-economy, a particular question was
dedicated to bioplastics. Participants were asked for which specific products sustainability
software should provide information on variants made from bioplastics. They could specify
1–3 products. The participants made various suggestions, which are shown in Figure 6.
Packaging was mentioned most often, including 35 times in the first entry box, fol-
lowed by textiles and consumer goods. The answers in the 2nd entry box include, in
particular, the topics of textiles & clothing, as well as construction and consumer goods.
Among the answers in the 3rd entry box, textiles & clothing also lead, followed by packag-
ing and construction products. Regarding the total number of mentions, packaging, textiles
& clothing are mentioned most frequently, followed by the construction sector. The impor-
tance of electronic & electrical products and textiles & clothing was highlighted again.
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 17 of 28
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 30
Figure 5. Sustainability information demanded from sustainability recommendation software. Note:
Participants who selected ‘other information’ specified this by the following seven statements: ‘In-
formation on providers and owners, headquarters, certificates such as ISO 14001-certified or EMAS,
link to sustainability strategy website’. ‘Recyclable components (…)’. ‘Functional product character-
istics. Decisions are always made in the context of product functionality’. ‘Alternative products with
similar properties but a better rating concerning the Circular economy’. ‘Since the life cycle costs
depend on the respective prices, additional price information (…) should be provided. ‘Toxicologi-
cal profile of the products’. ‘If relevant, traces of substances’.
3.4. Specific Requirements in the Context of Bioplastics
Due to its relevance to the circular and the bio-economy, a particular question was
dedicated to bioplastics. Participants were asked for which specific products sustainabil-
ity software should provide information on variants made from bioplastics. They could
specify 1–3 products. The participants made various suggestions, which are shown in Fig-
ure 6.
Packaging was mentioned most often, including 35 times in the first entry box, fol-
lowed by textiles and consumer goods. The answers in the 2nd entry box include, in par-
ticular, the topics of textiles & clothing, as well as construction and consumer goods.
Among the answers in the 3rd entry box, textiles & clothing also lead, followed by pack-
aging and construction products. Regarding the total number of mentions, packaging, tex-
tiles & clothing are mentioned most frequently, followed by the construction sector. The
importance of electronic & electrical products and textiles & clothing was highlighted
again.
Figure 5.
Sustainability information demanded from sustainability recommendation software. Note:
Participants who selected ‘other information’ specified this by the following seven statements:
‘Information on providers and owners, headquarters, certificates such as ISO 14001-certified or
EMAS, link to sustainability strategy website’. ‘Recyclable components (...)’. ‘Functional product
characteristics. Decisions are always made in the context of product functionality’. ‘Alternative
products with similar properties but a better rating concerning the Circular economy’. ‘Since the life
cycle costs depend on the respective prices, additional price information (...) should be provided.
‘Toxicological profile of the products’. ‘If relevant, traces of substances’.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 30
Figure 6. Products requiring information on variants made of bioplastics. Note: examples for the
clustering: Packaging: e.g., ‘packaging’, ‘wrappings’, ‘film packaging’, ‘food packaging’, Textiles
and clothing: e.g., ‘clothing’, ‘clothing’, ‘textiles’, Consumer goods: e.g., ‘Konsumgüter’, ‘consumer
goods’, Electronic & electrical products: e.g., ‘Elektrik und Elektronik’, ‘electrics & electronics’, Con-
struction: e.g., ‘Bau und Konstruktion’, ‘Bauwesen’, ‘building & construction’, Agriculture and horti-
culture: e.g., ‘agriculture, ‘horticulture’, Other: e.g., ‘food’, ‘tyres’, Cars and transport: e.g., ‘cars and
transport’, ‘cars’, Toys: toys, Coatings: e.g., ‘coating & adhesives’, ‘coatings and adhesives’.
4. Discussion
4.1. Implications for Four Target Groups
Sustainable development, one of the 21st century’s key objectives, requires appropri-
ate information on products’ sustainability characteristics. For this reason, mobilising the
potential of digitalizing product information is an important goal in the EU and beyond.
In this context, stakeholders along products’ value chains have different sustainability
priorities, also varying between product groups. Recommendation software to support
their individual product decisions is, however, missing. This article on key products need-
ing the provision of sustainability information and related recommendation software re-
lies on a survey among 134 sustainability experts and offers four-fold implications ex-
plained in the next sections: it (1) contributes to the sustainability, CE, and applied soft-
ware research, (2) provides information on bottom-up and follow-up priorities for CEAP
stakeholders and policymakers, and (3) has practical implications for software developers
by unveiling needs for specific recommendation software. Its benefits for users (4) are also
explained, followed by a discussion on its limitations.
Besides all statistical figures and rankings, the qualitative information in Table 4 with
product-specific explanations on the need for software-based sustainability information
0 102030405060
Coatings
Toys
Cars and transport
Other
Agriculture and horticulture
Construction
Electrical and Electronics
Consumer Goods
Textiles and clothing
Packaging
1st suggestion 2nd suggestion 3rd suggestion
Figure 6.
Products requiring information on variants made of bioplastics. Note: examples for the
clustering: Packaging: e.g., ‘packaging’, ‘wrappings’, ‘film packaging’, ‘food packaging’, Textiles and
clothing: e.g., ‘clothing’, ‘clothing’, ‘textiles’, Consumer goods: e.g., ‘Konsumgüter’, ‘consumer goods’,
Electronic & electrical products: e.g., ‘Elektrik und Elektronik’, ‘electrics & electronics’, Construction:
e.g., ‘Bau und Konstruktion’, ‘Bauwesen’, ‘building & construction’, Agriculture and horticulture: e.g.,
‘agriculture, ‘horticulture’, Other: e.g., ‘food’, ‘tyres’, Cars and transport: e.g., ‘cars and transport’,
‘cars’, Toys: toys, Coatings: e.g., ‘coating & adhesives’, ‘coatings and adhesives’.
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 18 of 28
4. Discussion
4.1. Implications for Four Target Groups
Sustainable development, one of the 21st century’s key objectives, requires appropriate
information on products’ sustainability characteristics. For this reason, mobilising the
potential of digitalizing product information is an important goal in the EU and beyond.
In this context, stakeholders along products’ value chains have different sustainability
priorities, also varying between product groups. Recommendation software to support their
individual product decisions is, however, missing. This article on key products needing
the provision of sustainability information and related recommendation software relies on
a survey among 134 sustainability experts and offers four-fold implications explained in
the next sections: it (1) contributes to the sustainability, CE, and applied software research,
(2) provides information on bottom-up and follow-up priorities for CEAP stakeholders
and policymakers, and (3) has practical implications for software developers by unveiling
needs for specific recommendation software. Its benefits for users (4) are also explained,
followed by a discussion on its limitations.
Besides all statistical figures and rankings, the qualitative information in Table 4with
product-specific explanations on the need for software-based sustainability information
and Table 5on Factors influencing the need for products’ sustainability information provide
helpful background details.
4.2. Contribution to Sustainability, CE, and Applied Software Research
Section 1provided the state of the art in sustainability research and indicators. How-
ever, a still-open question refers to the products for which specificsustainability information
and recommendation software is most important. The answers to our three questions con-
tribute to the sustainability and CE literature and their specific gap regarding recommender
software, which is also missing in software literature.
This article unveiled top information needs: 1. in four sustainability areas, 2. re-
garding sustainability information software, and 3. about bioplastics. In addition, ten
factors influencing these needs and facilitating the development of further product-related
sustainability classifications were unveiled.
Specifically, our analysis considered four sustainability aspects: in general, circular-
ity, social, and bio-based. An important finding was the varying relation between the
information interests regarding circularity, social sustainability, and bio-based aspects.
The lists of the reasons for the different information needs provide valuable additional
information here.
From a circular economy point of view, the high rates for information on social sustain-
ability reflected the importance of considering circular and social sustainability together.
Demonstrating the importance of sustainability information in the textile, electronics, and
food domains also mirrors and extends the knowledge on the need for sustainable products
in these areas (see besides [
6
], also, e.g., [
68
] for food and [
17
] for textiles). Both aspects
also emphasize the need for R&D for continuous sustainability improvements in these
industries. Section 1 of Table 4provided valuable background information in this context,
e.g., regarding the need to consider modularity in the design of electronic products.
While [
10
] described how the sustainability of bio-based products might be measured,
this article not only shows bio-based products for which specific needs’ recommendation
systems exist, but also refers to a recommendation system that may suggest products based
on users’ specific sustainability interests. In Section 3.4, the major market segments of
bioplastic were presented. This article supplements this knowledge regarding the most
important needs for recommendation software.
In this context, this article is also one of the first contributions regarding sustainability
recommendation software. It specified products with needs for such software and their
specific information needs by also unveiling the reasons. The main drivers of the need for
sustainability recommendation software for electronic & electrical products include the
aspect of modularity, the importance of energy efficiency, and the relevance of searching
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 19 of 28
for product information on the internet for the target group. The need for information
software for textiles is explained by the product characteristics and trends in the industry
towards sustainability. Regarding food, participants referred to the high sales numbers
and the problems of reading the information written in tiny fonts on the packages. Specific
software needs are discussed in Section 4.5.
4.3. Disclosure of Bottom-Up and Follow-Up Priorities in the Context of the CEAP
The CEAP is an important milestone toward the circular economy in Europe. As
described in Section 2, our findings rely on exploratory research. Likewise, our three ques-
tions had a broad scope. Therefore, one of the most remarkable findings was how closely
our results were related to the CEAP’s goals and, likewise, to the German Standardization
Roadmap Circular Economy, which closely follows the CEAP.
As assumed in the research hypothesis, our findings reflect the significance of CEAP’s
priority products regarding the need for sustainability information and provide important
insights into priority topics for various specific sustainability questions. They also show
experts’ sensitivity to numerous additional sustainability aspects besides circularity, which
must not be ignored. Social sustainability is an essential issue in this context. In addition,
the importance of energy issues was highlighted by the participants.
Concerning the need for sustainability information addressed by our question Q1, the
three most important product groups regarding sustainability information in general are
food, textiles & clothing, and electronic & electrical products.
In addition, several products ranked high across all the four sustainability categories
(general, circular, social, bio-based), specifically, food (ranks 1, -, 2, 3, respectively, ‘-‘ means
that the product was not included in the ranking), textiles & clothing (ranks 2, 3, 1, 4),
electronic & electrical products (ranks 3 (excluding ‘miscellaneous’), 2, 3, -), packaging
(ranks 4, together with building products, 1, -, 1), and building products (ranks 4, 4, 5,
6), lead the way. Batteries and vehicles, two parts of a CEAP priority category, were also
mentioned frequently. If their scores are combined, their significance indicated by the
experts becomes even more visible. Regarding bioplastic product variants, a need for
information on packaging, which is also described in the CEAP, was indicated most often.
The results for food require specific interpretation. Although food is a CEAP priority
topic, the experts did not mention a need for circularity information on food, in contrast
to the need for other sustainability information on these products. The reason is that the
CEAP refers primarily to food waste, while our survey asked for product information. An
interesting aspect in this context is also the frequently indicated need for recommender
software with food information in Figure 5, also reflecting the need for social sustainability
information shown in Figure 3.
Concerning Q2, addressing the need for sustainability recommendation software,
electronic & electrical products and components, textiles & clothing, and food were men-
tioned most frequently. They are followed by vehicles, building products, and packaging,
while the reasons for the needs vary. Together with ICT, electronic products are also the
first products mentioned in the CEAP, making our and CEAP’s categories with electronic
products partly comparable. Integrating also the ICT-related answers into our class of
electronic & electrical products would make that category even more significant. However,
a separate ICT category provides the opportunity to consider these products separately.
In this context, an additional survey, which we are currently analysing, already shows a
particular interest in sustainability recommendation software in that area on the side of a
specific public procurement stakeholder group. Therefore, we regard a separate category
of ICT products as helpful for further research and practice. As described above, we also
created separate categories for vehicles and batteries.
Six product groups of the CEAP also belong to the top six product categories with
needs for sustainability recommendation software. Plastics were mentioned less frequently.
This result is in line with the fact that plastic is a material, not a product. The fact that
plastic plays an essential role in the packaging area strengthens the importance of this
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 20 of 28
category within our findings. The findings regarding Q3 discussed in Section 4.3 provide
further information in the CEAP context. Several communicated needs for recommendation
systems refer to areas in which platforms already exist (see Section 1.2). This observation
requires follow-up analyses on: (i) which product life-cycle stages these needs address, (ii)
whether the existing platforms are known and (iii) what the specific gaps are.
Although it is noteworthy that our results reflect CEAP priorities, the most important
findings are participants’ further suggestions. Regarding the standardization roadmap,
the results provide synergies: the roadmap will lead to product specifications, and the
recommendation system can ensure the provision of the necessary information on how the
standards are addressed. As [
6
] highlighted, ‘Horizon Europe will support the development
of indicators and data, keeping in mind the role of digital tools (...) to achieve circular
objectives’. This will be the next step of our research.
4.4. Contribution to Software Engineering
As described in Section 1, the EU aims to identify crucial information about the
makeup of products so that users across the supply chain can use it. Sections 4.2 and 4.3
showed the need for sustainability recommendation software and unveiled for which
specific products this need exists. Regarding the kind of information needs investigated by
Q3, participants highlighted the importance of information on end-of-life options, life cycle
assessment results, and social sustainability. In addition, they described that additional
information might be relevant, e.g., on traces of substances. The participants also referred
to various needs for information due to ten product characteristics: varying materials and
material and energy intensity, different relevance of circularity, recyclability, packaging
and bio-based variants, different framework of working conditions, and the possibility
of regional production as well as the specific situation of products made from rare raw
materials. Regarding current developments, we also expect that the relevance of product
passports will vary, particularly between slow and fast-moving products and food whose
life cycle ends with the consumption process.
Participants also highlighted the need for labels, simultaneously emphasizing the
importance of standardisation. Likewise, Bowen et al. [
41
] described that the acceptance
of information disclosure schemes very much depends on their credibility and the way
the information is deployed. Standards-based (eco) labels may significantly promote the
uptake of sustainable products [42].
Implications for further steps are described in Section 5. Regarding the EU’s aim
to identify the most important information about the makeup of products, the findings
in Figure 4and Table 5provide a helpful foundation and help to specify the analysis
towards more product-specific information. Nevertheless, much work remains. A follow-
up discussion with an expert from the textile industry unveiled, for example, a high
number of additional sustainability indicators discussed in that domain, which would need
further consideration.
The overview of products requiring information on variants made of bioplastics also
provides a helpful foundation for potential next steps to analyse in which way these
findings also implicate a need for sustainability recommendation software.
4.5. Contribution for Future Software Users
Opportunities to select products based on their sustainability characteristics provide
many advantages. In particular, they help individuals and professionals to contribute
to environmental and social sustainability. However, there are also potential individual
benefits, for example, in the context of several new possible policy measures in Germany.
The relevant discussions refer to a new taxation system for company cars and taxes ac-
cording to the cars’ environmental impact (see [
23
]: ‘In a concept paper, leading Green
politicians proposed two tickets as successors to the 9-euro ticket: a regional ticket for
€
29
and a nationwide ticket for
€
49 a month. Both should continue to be valid for local and
regional transport. To finance this, the Greens want to curtail the company car privilege,
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 21 of 28
which allows companies to deduct the cost of company cars from their taxes. Above all,
CO
2
emissions are to be taken more into account’ (translated)). The importance of sus-
tainability recommendation software for vehicles was shown in Figure 4. Such a system
could also give essential support to select cars to optimize taxation. If the new taxes are
implemented, even a rise in the importance of sustainability recommendation systems for
cars may be expected.
4.6. Limitations
Besides all contributions, we also identified three limitations of this study regarding
the method, the participants, and the information depth to specify sustainability recom-
mendation systems.
Limitation regarding the research method: As described in Section 3.1, most survey
results were deduced from answers to open questions. An additional survey with pre-
defined answer options based on Figure 3and a discussion on the topics in Table 3would
provide even more insight into this context. Another limitation is that the participants
described opinions in the questionnaire but did not make choice tests. A short choice
experiment in the ConCirMy project will provide more insight into how consumers value
sustainability characteristics and related information.
Limitation regarding the survey participants: The limited geographical distribution of
the survey participants, the focus on experts, mainly from the R&D field with a theoretical
perspective on the topic, and the low number of practitioners is also notable. Another
observation was that the number of circular economy experts among the survey participants
was much higher than that of bioeconomy experts. Therefore, the results are primarily
relevant to the circular economy. In addition, bio-based products were the category with
the fewest answers in Section 3.1. This result may reflect the participants’ knowledge in the
different areas and the order of the questions on information needs: participants may have
regarded certain characteristics of bio-based products as covered by the previous answers
in Section 3.1. Due to the limited participation of bioeconomy experts and the geographical
coverage of the survey, an additional study, specifically on the European bioeconomy, is
currently being considered with stakeholders.
Our focus was on researchers from the circular and bioeconomy. Additional input
regarding sustainability aspects with a broader scope may come from research communities
such as the STRN sustainability transition research network. While detailed product-
specific knowledge seemed to be most important in the given context, working with
additional researchers may be the next step.
Our additional public procurement study unveiled another limitation regarding the
experts’ overarching knowledge. The professionals of the public procurement survey
mentioned in Section 4.3 must comply with specific requirements regarding product prices
and LCC, resulting in significantly higher scores for LCC information. Although LCC is not
an indicator related to the need for urgent environmental protection measures, the answers
of 35% of the participants who indicate a need for LCC information must not be ignored.
Limitation regarding the implications for recommendation software: In addition to
the aspects mentioned above, the survey does not specify the need for information and
recommendation software regarding the different product life-cycle stages from the design
until the end-of-life stage. Specifying this knowledge will be of particular relevance for soft-
ware developers. Participants also identified gaps in areas with existing recommendation
systems which requires additional analyses. Packaging is a good example in this regard,
where CirNet helps to support sustainability decisions in the design stage already. Possible
additional software requirements to support sustainability decisions on other life-cycle
stages must be subject to future analyses. In addition, it is likely that the future develop-
ment of product passports also creates new recommendation software requirements, which
will need further investigation. In response to the current trends in developing product
passports, more research is also suggested to analyse for what types of these passports
recommender software would be most helpful.
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 22 of 28
5. Conclusions
Research on sustainability information and indicators determined the starting point of
our study. On this basis, we made five particular contributions:
•
While scholars such as [
10
] demonstrated how sustainability might be measured
(for example, of bio-based products), this article does not only show products for
which specific needs for sustainability recommendation systems exist, but also refers
to a recommendation system that may suggest products based on users’ specific
sustainability interests.
•
Ten factors influencing the need for sustainability information and facilitating further
product-related sustainability classifications were unveiled.
•
The EU’s 2020 New CE Action Plan and the priorities of the German Standardisation
Roadmap Circular Economy are enriched by further insights facilitating practical
implementations and decisions. This includes, in particular, the identification of
priority areas where information based on specific additional indicators is needed.
•
Qualitative, product-specific explanations on the need for software-based sustainabil-
ity information was provided (Table 4), and, finally,
•
Potential support for an emerging new need for car-related sustainability information
and recommendations was unveiled.
The top-3 priority products for sustainability information and recommendation soft-
ware are, in different orders, electronic & electrical products, textiles & clothing, and food.
In addition, we identified the most important product groups needing information on the
specific sustainability characteristics ‘circular’, ‘social sustainability’, and ‘bio-based’. Elec-
tronic & electrical products, textiles & clothing, and food dominate again, each belonging to
two of these three specific top-3 groups. In addition, they refer to a wide variety of specific
products. Therefore, these findings also indicate a need for further investigation. Food
provides an illustrative example of this since the experts specified several food products for
which sustainability information already has particular importance. A wide variety also
characterizes the product-relevant energy-related issues highlighted by the experts in vari-
ous parts of our survey. Supplementing the top priorities, our results present sustainability
information needs for various additional products.
Besides all the aspects unveiled by our study, one remaining issue is how sustainability
should be measured. While several aspects are product-specific, others seem to have more
in common. One topic which is regarded as very important is social sustainability. Section 1
presented EN 16751 with sustainability criteria for bio-based products. According to our
analysis, this standard also provides useful building blocks to evaluate other products, e.g.,
regarding social sustainability.
The successful provision of sustainability information also depends on various addi-
tional scientific, economic, and quality infrastructure factors, including standards but also,
e.g., labels. Proven and accepted measures and approaches are required to collect relevant
data and information. The creation of standards for the circular economy is also a current
goal of the standards organisations ISO and IEC as well as CEN and CENELEC with their
national member organisations. Since the development of circular economy standards has
just begun, the number of corresponding labels is still limited. This limitation indicates an
information gap, which also influences the provision of information by recommendation
systems. The current work on the Standardization Roadmap Circular Economy [
69
] can
help to boost the development of standards in this area. In this context, the results might
be helpful for sustainability standardisation to focus on important product areas. How-
ever, the availability of the required information also depends on the product providers’
willingness to share the relevant data. More research will be necessary to analyse how this
information can be provided in the best way.
Regarding specific target groups of sustainability information and software, the survey
participants referred not only to consumers and professionals but also to information
needed by public procurement. This aspect is investigated further in the German project
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 23 of 28
ConCirMy. More detailed consideration of sustainability aspects by recommendation
software will be subject to future research.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization: S.W. and C.F.d.B.R., Formal analysis: S.W., Funding
acquisition: S.W. Investigation: S.W., Methodology: S.W., Visualization: S.W. and C.F.d.B.R., Writing—
original draft: S.W., Writing—review and editing: S.W. and C.F.d.B.R. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
We acknowledge the support of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
(BMBF) (ConCirMy project, measure ReziProK, funding No. 033R236E).
Institutional Review Board Statement:
This study relied on proven data management techniques
at Technische Universität Berlin. A cross-check by the team confirmed that the article does not
contain information which would make the participants identifiable. Ethical review and approval
were waived.
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in
the study
.
Data Availability Statement:
Raw data is stored at TU Berlin according to our privacy declaration
describing that aggregated survey results are used for scientific research and lectures.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Survey
Survey on sustainable products and sustainability software
Thank you for taking part in this survey! It is part of the ConCirMy (Configu-
rator for the Circular econoMy) research project. Your contribution supports our re-
search on the promotion of environmentally friendly products and the development of
sustainability software.
ConCirMy is particularly focused on promoting circular economy products (
e.g., products
made of recycled or recyclable materials). In addition, it aims to promote products of the
bioeconomy (bio-based products), which we understand to be products which are, wholly
or in part, made using resources of biological origin and can substitute products tradition-
ally made with fossil resources.
ConCirMy is funded by the ReziProK (‘Resource-efficient Circular Economy—Innovative
Product Cycles’) measure of the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research (BMBF)
.
Since we value your time, this questionnaire has been designed to be as short and
simple as possible.
If you have any questions or experience technical difficulties, please do not hesitate to
contact us:
Dr. Simone Wurster, Technische Universität Berlin, FG Innovation Economics
Straße des 17. Juni 135, D-10623 Berlin
http://www.inno.tu-berlin.de
Data protection
In line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) we need your consent
to process your data. Your answers to the survey are used for scientific purposes and will
be scientifically processed by the ConCirMy project. Your data or contact details will not be
passed on to third parties outside the ConCirMy project. Aggregated survey results are
used for scientific research and lectures. This work shall be made public. Names and e-mail
addresses of participants will not be used for data analysis. By clicking on ‘Accept’ you
accept the Privacy Agreement. Please indicate your consent below to start the survey.
A Getting started
A.1 Which of the following keywords describes your professional role best?
•Management
•Administration/accounting
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 24 of 28
•Procurement
•Production
•Marketing
•Sales
•Research and development
•Other
A.2 Please rate your familiarity with the circular economy:
Very familiar Moderately
familiar
Somewhat
familiar Slightly familiar Not at all
familiar
A.3 Please rate your familiarity with the bioeconomy:
Very familiar Moderately
familiar
Somewhat
familiar Slightly familiar Not at all
familiar
A.4 From your point of view, what are the most important products for which sustainability
information is needed? Please note the products in the relevant category.
Products with need for information on . . .
. . . sustainability in general:
. . . circularity (e.g., recycled content, recyclable products):
. . . social sustainability (e.g., regarding the working conditions in the product life cycle):
. . . bio-based content:
B Software to support sustainable product choices
B.1
The sustainability of products is important, for example, in product development, in
manufacturing and in purchasing decisions. In this context, software systems can pro-
vide customised information. In your opinion, for which products is software helpful
that suggests product variants or components based on the individual sustainability
preferences of the users? Please make 1–3 suggestions.
B.2
Please briefly describe why software to support sustainability-oriented choices is
particularly attractive for these specific products:
B.3 Which sustainability information should the software provide to support the develop-
ment, production or purchasing of the products mentioned in your
previous answers?
•Life cycle assessment (LCA) results
•Life cycle costing (LCC) results
•Percentage rate of recycled content
•Percentage rate of bio-based content
•End of life options (e.g., recyclability)
•Social sustainability (e.g., fair working conditions along the entire value chain)
•Labels (e.g., EU Ecolabel)
•Other
•
Depending on the types of products, different types of sustainability information
should be given
B.4
Bioplastics belong to the key elements of the bioeconomy and play an important
role for the circular economy. Currently, the top market segments of bioplastics
are (starting with the biggest): packaging, consumer goods, textiles, agriculture &
horticulture, automotive & transport, coatings & adhesives, building & construction
and electrics & electronics.
B.5
Based on the ranking above, which specific products do you think should become
priority applications of sustainability software to provide information on versions
made wholly or in part of bioplastics? Please specify 1–3 products.
C Your background
C.1
What kind of an organization do you work for?
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 25 of 28
•Business
•Government, public authority or agency
•Industry association
•Certification body
•NGO
•University or research organisation
•Other
C.2
In which area do you work?
•Agriculture
•Manufacturing
•Construction
•Energy
•Trade
•Transportation
•Information and communication
•Financing and insurance
•Real estate
•Health care
•Accommodation or food services
•Other
C.3
What is your country of residency?
•Belgium
•France
•Germany
•Greece
•Italy
•Poland
•Portugal
•Spain
•Netherlands
•Other
D Outlook
D.1
Do you have additional comments or recommendations for our project?
•Yes
•No
D.2
Please include your comments here:
Thank you very much for participating!
References
1.
United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Resolution Adopted by the Gen-
eral Assembly on 25 September 2015. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/
generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (accessed on 4 July 2022).
2.
United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. 2020. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300
(accessed on 4 July 2022).
3. Valverde, J.-M.; Avilés-Palacios, C. Circular Economy as a Catalyst for Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: A
Positive Relationship between Two Self-Sufficient Variables. Sustainability 2021,13, 12652. [CrossRef]
4. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Goal 12: Ensure sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns. Available
online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/ (accessed on 30 September 2021).
5.
EURACTIV. EU Plans ‘Digital Product Passport’ to Boost Circular Economy. 2021. Available online: https://www.euractiv.com/
section/circular-economy/news/eu-plans-digital-product-passport-to-boost-circular-economy/ (accessed on 30 July 2022).
6.
European Commission. Circular Economy Action Plan. For a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe. 2020. Available online:
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/circular-economy/new_circular_economy_action_plan.pdf (accessed on 27 July 2022).
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 26 of 28
7.
ISO 13065:2015; Sustainability Criteria for Bioenergy. ISO: London, UK, 2015. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/
52528.html (accessed on 17 August 2022).
8.
Majer, S.; Wurster, S.; Moosmann, D.; Ladu, L.; Sumfleth, B.; Thrän, D. Gaps and Research Demand for Sustainability Certification
and Standardisation in a Sustainable Bio-Based Economy in the EU. Sustainability 2018,10, 2455. [CrossRef]
9.
Husgafvel, R.; Pajunen, N.; Virtanen, K.; Paavola, I.-L.; Päällysaho, M.; Inkinen, V.; Heiskanen, K.; Dahl, O.; Ekroos, A. Social
sustainability performance indicators—Experiences from process industry. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2015,8, 14–25. [CrossRef]
10.
Ladu, L.; Morone, P. Holistic approach in the evaluation of the sustainability of bio-based products: An Integrated Assessment
Tool. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021,28, 911–924e6. [CrossRef]
11.
EN 16751:2016; Bio-Based Products—Sustainability Criteria (BSI Version). CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2016. Available online:
https://www.en-standard.eu/bs-en-16751-2016-bio-based-products-sustainability-criteria/ (accessed on 29 July 2022).
12.
Falcone, P.; Imbert, E. Social Life Cycle Approach as a Tool for Promoting the Market Uptake of Bio-Based Products from a
Consumer Perspective. Sustainability 2018,10, 1031. [CrossRef]
13.
D’Adamo, I.; Falcone, P.M.; Imbert, E.; Morone, P. A Socio-economic Indicator for EoL Strategies for Bio-based Products. Ecol.
Econ. 2020,178, 106794. [CrossRef]
14.
Santos, E.; Moreira, J. Social Sustainability of Water and Waste Management Companies in Portugal. Sustainability
2022
,
14, 221. [CrossRef]
15.
ADB/ILO. Core Labour Standards Handbook. 2006. Available online: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/--
-ro-bangkok/---ilo-manila/documents/publication/wcms_126253.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2021).
16.
Matuštík, J.; Koˇcí, V. A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Electronic Retail of Household Products. Sustainability
2020
,
12, 4604. [CrossRef]
17.
Niinimäki, K.; Peters, G.; Dahlbo, H.; Perry, P.; Rissanen, T.; Gwilt, A. The environmental price of fast fashion. Nat. Rev. Earth
Environ. 2020,1, 189–200. [CrossRef]
18.
Zamani, B.; Sandin, G.; Svanström, M.; Peters, G.M. Hotspot identification in the clothing industry using social life cycle
assessment—opportunities and challenges of input-output modelling. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018,23, 536–546. [CrossRef]
19.
Onat, N.C.; Aboushaqrah, N.N.; Kucukvar, M.; Tarlochan, F.; Hamouda, A.M. From sustainability assessment to sustainability
management for policy development: The case for electric vehicles. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020,216, 112937. [CrossRef]
20.
Wurster, S.; Heß, P.; Nauruschat, M.; Jütting, M. Sustainable Circular Mobility: User-Integrated Innovation and Specifics of
Electric Vehicle Owners. Sustainability 2020,12, 7900. [CrossRef]
21.
Rossi, E.; Bertassini, A.C.; dos Santos Ferreira, C.; Neves do Amaral, W.A.; Ometto, A.R. Circular economy indicators for
organizations considering sustainability and business models: Plastic, textile and electro-electronic cases. J. Clean. Prod.
2020
,247,
119137. [CrossRef]
22.
Wu, H.; Hu, Y.; Yu, Y.; Huang, K.; Wang, L. The environmental footprint of electric vehicle battery packs during the production
and use phases with different functional units. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021,26, 97–113. [CrossRef]
23.
FOKUS Online. Für Nachfolger von 9-Euro-Ticket: Grünen Wollen Dienstwagen-Vorteile Beschneiden—LINDNER Sieht
“Linke Polemik”. 2022. Available online: https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/gruenen-wollen-dienstwagen-vorteile-
beschneiden-lindner-sieht-linke-polemik_id_130471955.html (accessed on 15 August 2022).
24.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Towards a Circular Economy: Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition. 2015. Available
online: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/towards-a-circular-economy-business-rationale-for-an-accelerated-transition?
source=post_page---------------------------&msclkid=1c8c4eb5af6411ec88f2005eb30d226d (accessed on 29 March 2022).
25.
European Parliament. Circular Economy: Definition, Importance and Benefits. 2015. Available online: https://www.europarl.
europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/circular-economy-definition-importance-and-benefits (accessed
on 28 February 2022).
26.
Saidani, M.; Yannou, B.; Leroy, Y.; Cluzel, F.; Kendall, A. A taxonomy of circular economy indicators. J. Clean. Prod.
2019
,207,
542–559. [CrossRef]
27.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Material Circularity Indicator (MCI). 2022. Available online: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.
org/material-circularity-indicator (accessed on 30 July 2022).
28.
Heisel, F.; Rau-Oberhuber, S. Calculation and evaluation of circularity indicators for the built environment using the case studies
of UMAR and Madaster. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,243, 118482. [CrossRef]
29.
Aguilar, A.; Twardowski, T.; Wohlgemuth, R. Bioeconomy for Sustainable Development. Biotechnol. J.
2019
,14, e1800638.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
30.
Gawel, E.; Pannicke, N.; Hagemann, N. A Path Transition Towards a Bioeconomy—The Crucial Role of Sustainability. Sustainability
2019,11, 3005. [CrossRef]
31.
Lohmann, B.; Graf, P. Bioeconomy and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. 2021. Available online: https://biooekonomie.
de/en/topics/in-depth-reports/bioeconomy-and-un-sustainable-development-goals (accessed on 30 May 2022).
32.
EN 16575:2014; Bio-Based Products—Vocabulary. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. Available online: https://www.beuth.de/de/
norm/din-en-16575/200169430 (accessed on 31 May 2022).
33.
European Commission. Jobs and Wealth in the European Union Bioeconomy (Biomass Producing and Converting Sectors) Results
from a Collaboration between the JRC and the Nova-Institute. 2022. Available online: https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datam/
mashup/BIOECONOMICS/index.html (accessed on 24 June 2022).
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 27 of 28
34.
European Bioplastics. Global Production Capacities of Bioplastics. 2021. Available online: https://www.european-bioplastics.
org/market/ (accessed on 23 June 2022).
35.
European Bioplastics; Nova-Institute. Global Production Capacities of Bioplastics in 2021 (by Market Segment). 2021. Available
online: https://www.european-bioplastics.org/market/applications-sectors/ (accessed on 9 August 2022).
36.
European Commission. Scoping Study to Identify Potential Circular Economy Actions, Priority Sectors, Material Flows and Value
Chains. 2014. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/de/publication-detail/-/publication/0619e465-581c-41dc-9807-2bb394
f6bd07 (accessed on 14 December 2021).
37.
European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A new Circular Economy Action Plan: For a Cleaner and More
Competitive Europe. 2022. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0
098&from=EN (accessed on 27 September 2021).
38.
Sijtsema, S.J.; Onwezen, M.C.; Reinders, M.J.; Dagevos, H.; Partanen, A.; Meeusen, M. Consumer perception of bio-based
products—An exploratory study in 5 European countries. NJAS—Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2016,77, 61–69. [CrossRef]
39.
Camacho-Otero, J.; Boks, C.; Pettersen, I. Consumption in the Circular Economy: A Literature Review. Sustainability
2018
,
10, 2758. [CrossRef]
40.
Egbue, O.; Long, S. Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: An analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions.
Energy Policy 2012,48, 717–729. [CrossRef]
41.
Bowen, F.; Tang, S.; Panagiotopoulos, P. A classification of information-based environmental regulation: Voluntariness, compliance
and beyond. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,712, 135571. [CrossRef]
42.
Lanzini, P.; Testa, F.; Iraldo, F. Factors affecting drivers’ willingness to pay for biofuels: The case of Italy. J. Clean. Prod.
2016
,112,
2684–2692. [CrossRef]
43.
Wurster, S.; Schulze, R.; Simon, R.G.; Hoyer, S. A Grounded Theory on Sustainable Circular Public Procurement in Germany:
Specific Product Case and Strategies. Sustainability 2021,13, 13525. [CrossRef]
44.
Ricci, F.; Rokach, L.; Shapira, B. Introduction to Recommender Systems Handbook. In Recommender Systems Handbook; Springer:
Boston, MA, USA, 2011; pp. 1–35.
45.
Gatzioura, A.; Sànchez-Marrè, M.; Gibert, K. A Hybrid Recommender System to Improve Circular Economy in Industrial
Symbiotic Networks. Energies 2019,12, 3546. [CrossRef]
46.
Park, Y. Advanced Recommender Systems. In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, 4th ed.; Khosrowpour, M., Ed.;
IGI Global/Information Science Reference (an Imprint of IGI Global): Hershey, PA, USA, 2018; pp. 1735–1745.
47.
Felfernig, A.; Boratto, L.; Stettinger, M.; Tkalˇciˇc, M. Group Recommender Systems; Springer International Publishing: Cham,
Switzerland, 2018.
48.
Lü, L.; Medo, M.; Yeung, C.H.; Zhang, Y.-C.; Zhang, Z.-K.; Zhou, T. Recommender systems. Phys. Rep.
2012
,519, 1–49. [CrossRef]
49.
Vinson, N.G.; Molyneaux, H.; Martin, J.D. Explanations in Artificial Intelligence Decision Making. In Handbook of Research
on Human-Computer Interfaces and New Modes of Interactivity; Blashki, K., Isaías, P., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019;
pp. 96–117.
50.
Mavridou, E.; Kehagias, D.D.; Tzovaras, D.; Hassapis, G. Mining affective needs of automotive industry customers for building a
mass-customization recommender system. J. Intell. Manuf. 2013,24, 251–265. [CrossRef]
51.
van Capelleveen, G.; van Wieren, J.; Amrit, C.; Yazan, D.M.; Zijm, H. Exploring recommendations for circular supply chain
management through interactive visualisation. Decis. Support Syst. 2021,140, 113431. [CrossRef]
52.
van Capelleveen, G.; Amrit, C.; Zijm, H.; Yazan, D.M.; Abdi, A. Toward building recommender systems for the circular economy:
Exploring the perils of the European Waste Catalogue. J. Environ. Manag. 2021,277, 111430. [CrossRef]
53.
Nachhaltigkeit, K. Sustainability Compass. 2016. Available online: https://www.kompass-nachhaltigkeit.de/en/ (accessed on
1 November 2021).
54. WECOBIS. Ökologisches Baustoffinformationssystem. 2021. Available online: https://www.wecobis.de/ (accessed on 9 July 2022).
55.
Zeng, F.; Lee, S.H.N.; Lo, C.K.Y. The Role of Information Systems in the Sustainable Development of Enterprises: A Systematic
Literature Network Analysis. Sustainability 2020,12, 3337. [CrossRef]
56. Ecoinvent. Ecoinvent. 2022. Available online: https://ecoinvent.org/ (accessed on 9 July 2022).
57.
GLAD. Global LCA: Data Access Network. 2022. Available online: https://www.globallcadataaccess.org/ (accessed on
9 July 2022).
58. Sphera. Gabi Solutions. 2021. Available online: https://gabi.sphera.com (accessed on 9 July 2022).
59. Madaster. Madaster—Das Kataster für Materialien. 2022. Available online: http://madaster.de (accessed on 9 July 2022).
60.
BMBF. Ressourceneffiziente Kreislaufwirtschaft Innovative Produktkreisläufe (ReziProK). Available online: https://www.fona.
de/medien/pdf/ReziProK_25_Projektsteckbriefe.pdf (accessed on 4 July 2022).
61.
EIBA. EIBA—Sensory Acquisition, Automated Identification and Evaluation of Old Parts on the Basis of Product Data as Well as
Information about Previous Deliveries. 2022. Available online: https://innovative-produktkreislaeufe.de/en/Projects/EIBA.html
(accessed on 4 July 2022).
62.
Acatech. Battery Pass “Made with Germany”—Implementation of a New Generation of Digital Product Handling. 2022.
Available online: https://en.acatech.de/project/battery-pass-made-with-germany-implementation-of-a-new-generation-of-
digital-product-handling/ (accessed on 28 June 2022).
Sustainability 2022,14, 11951 28 of 28
63. AÖL. Biokunststofftool. Available online: https://biokunststofftool.de/ (accessed on 11 July 2022).
64.
BioBasedEconomy. Open-Bio: Opening Bio-Based Markets via Standards, Labelling and Procurement. 2016. Available online:
https://www.biobasedeconomy.eu/projects/open-bio/ (accessed on 8 July 2022).
65. Stebbins, R. Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences; SAGE Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001.
66.
Swedberg, R. Exploratory Research. In The Production of Knowledge: Enhancing Progress in Social Science; Elman, C., Gerring, J.,
Ludes, J.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020; pp. 17–41.
67.
BMBF. Auf dem Weg zu Einer Ressourceneffizienten Kreislaufwirtschaft. 2019. Available online: https://www.bmbf.de/
bmbf/shareddocs/kurzmeldungen/de/auf-dem-weg-zu-einer-ressource-ffizienten-kreislaufwirtschaft.html (accessed on
6 August 2022).
68.
Hoek, A.C.; Malekpour, S.; Raven, R.; Court, E.; Byrne, E. Towards environmentally sustainable food systems: Decision-making
factors in sustainable food production and consumption. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021,26, 610–626. [CrossRef]
69.
DIN. Standardization Roadmap Circular Economy. 2022. Available online: https://www.din.de/en/innovation-and-research/
circular-economy/standardization-roadmap-circular-economy (accessed on 15 July 2022).
