Burkovska Anna, PhD (Economics), Assosiate Professor of the Department of Management, Business, and Administration, Mykolayiv National Agrarian University, Mykolayiv, Ukraine

ORCID: 0000-0003-0563-6967
e-mail: anna.burkovskaya12@gmail.com

Poltorak Anastasiia, Doctor of Economics, Professor, Head of the Department of Management, Business, and Administration, Mykolayiv National Agrarian University, Mykolayiv, Ukraine

ORCID: 0000-0002-9752-9431
e-mail: poltorak@mnau.edu.ua

Burkovska Alla, PhD (Economics), Associate Professor of the Department of Finance, Banking and Insurance, Mykolayiv National Agrarian University, Mykolayiv, Ukraine

ORCID: 0000-0003-4158-1721
e-mail: allaburkovska2010@gmail.com

Sukhorukova Anna, PhD (Public Administration), Associate Professor of the Department of Management, Business, and Administration, Mykolayiv National Agrarian University, Mykolayiv, Ukraine

ORCID: 0000-0002-6170-4955
e-mail: a.l.sukhorukova83@gmail.com

Pekera Artem, PhD Student, Mykolayiv National Agrarian University, Mykolayiv, Ukraine

ORCID: 0009-0001-4074-1714
e-mail: pekeraart@gmail.com

Circular Material use Management in the European Union: trends, challenges, and Policy Impacts

Abstract. Introduction. In a world facing mounting pressure from urbanization and population growth, particularly in developing regions, the EU’s experiences and policies promoting circularity are valuable examples for global sustainability initiatives. This article not only highlights the progress that has been made, but also the significant challenges that remain, particularly the disparities between member states. This underscores the need for continued investment, policy coherence, and public engagement. Thus, this topic lies at the intersection of environmental policy, economic strategy, and social responsibility, making it critically important for the future of sustainable development within Europe and beyond.

Purpose. This study aims to analyze the current state, progress, and challenges of circular material use across the European Union. The study will evaluate the effectiveness of EU member states’ transition to a circular economy by examining key indicators, such as the Circular Material Use Rate (CMUR), municipal and packaging waste recycling targets, and waste treatment practices. The study seeks to identify performance disparities among countries, evaluate the effectiveness of policies such as the Waste Framework Directive and the Circular Economy Action Plan, and pinpoint infrastructural, economic, and behavioral barriers to a more circular system. Additionally, the study explores the environmental, economic, and policy implications of improving material circularity. Ultimately, it will contribute to the EU’s long-term goals of achieving climate neutrality, sustainability, and resource efficiency.

Results. The research confirms that the European Union is steadily strengthening its position as a global leader in sustainability and the circular economy. A key metric of this progress is the Community Material Reuse Rate (CMUR), which rose to 11.8% in 2023. This signals a positive, albeit gradual, shift away from dependence on primary raw materials. However, the data reveal significant disparities among member states. The Netherlands leads with an impressive reuse rate of 30.6%, while Romania lags behind with only 1.3%. This highlights the uneven implementation of circular practices and the urgent need for targeted investments and policy support in less advanced regions. On a global scale, the outlook is even more concerning. If current waste generation trends persist, per capita municipal solid waste could increase by almost 50% by 2050. Nevertheless, the research presents an optimistic scenario in which strong circular economy strategies focused on waste reduction, recycling, and reuse could lower global waste levels to 0.62 kg per person per day – less than in 2020. In sum, while the EU has made measurable progress, the transition to a fully circular economy remains a significant challenge. It demands comprehensive reform, technological advancement, global collaboration, and unwavering political commitment. The potential rewards — in terms of environmental resilience, economic strength, and societal well-being — make this transition necessary and urgent.

Conclusions. The findings of this research highlight the progress and complexity of the European Union’s transition to a circular economy. Although rising indicators, such as the Community Material Reuse Rate, reflect meaningful progress, stark disparities between member states reveal that circularity is unevenly distributed and heavily dependent on national capacities and political will. To achieve the EU’s ambitious sustainability targets, such as higher recycling rates and reduced landfill use, stronger infrastructure and policy coherence are required, as well as greater public engagement and behavioral change. On a global level, the stakes are even higher. Without decisive action, waste generation is poised to surge, further straining fragile ecosystems and urban systems. However, the circular economy offers a viable alternative — a pathway that can curb resource use, reduce emissions, and foster long-term economic resilience. The transition to a circular economy is ultimately not just an environmental imperative but also a strategic opportunity. With sustained investment, innovation, and cooperation, it can deliver far-reaching benefits for Europe and the world. The challenge now is to turn policy ambition into concrete, inclusive, and scalable action. 

Keywords: circular economy, sustainability, European Union, Community Material Reuse Rate, recycling, waste management.

References:

1. Statista. (2025). Circular material use rate in the European Union (EU-27). https://www.statista.com/statistics/1316448/circular-material-use-rate-in-european-union/ 
2. Di Maio, F., & Rem, P. C. (2015). A Robust Indicator for Promoting Circular Economy through Recycling. Journal of Environmental Protection, 06(10), 1095–1104. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2015.610096.
3. Statista. (2025). Municipal waste recycling rate in the European Union (EU-27) in 2022, and targets from 2025 to 2035. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1315931/recycling-rate-targets-in-european-union/ 
4. Burkovska, A., & Burkovska, A. (2025). Semantic approach to food marketing: the influence of sustainable development narratives on the Ukrainian market. Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, 11(1), 317–347. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2025.11.01.12. 
5. Statista. (2025). Packaging recycling targets in the European Union (EU-27) in 2025 and 2030, by type. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1316423/recycling-rate-targets-for-packaging-types-in-european-union.
6. Coenen, T. B., Haanstra, W., Braaksma, A. J., & Santos, J. (2020). CEIMA: A framework for identifying critical interfaces between the Circular Economy and stakeholders in the lifecycle of infrastructure assets. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 155, 104552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104552 
7. Statista. (2023). Circular material use rate in the European Union (EU-27) in 2010 and 2023, by country. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1316475/circular-material-use-rate-in-european-union-by-country/.
8. Shebanina, O., Burkovska, A., Petrenko, V., & Burkovska, A. (2023). Economic planning at agricultural enterprises: Ukrainian experience of increasing the availability of data in the context of food security. Agricultural and Resource Economics, 9(4), 168–194. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2023.09.04.08. 
9. Statista. (2025). Distribution of waste treated in European Union (EU-27) countries in 2022, by treatment method. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1341031/european-union-total-waste-treatment-shares-by-method-and-country/
10. Aranda-Usón, A., Portillo-Tarragona, P., Marín-Vinuesa, L., & Scarpellini, S. (2019). Financial Resources for the Circular Economy: A Perspective from Businesses. Sustainability, 11(3), 888. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030888. 
11. Statista. (2025). Share of municipal waste sent to landfills in the European Union (EU-27) from 2000 to 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1480844/european-union-municipal-waste-landfill-share/. 
12. Poltorak, A. S., Burkovska, A. I., Khrystenko, O. A., Sukhorukova, A. L., & Dovgal, I. V. (2023). Monitoring of relationships between indicators of food security of the states. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1269(1), 012001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1269/1/012001. 
13. Statista. (2025). Circular economy investment motives and decisions worldwide in 2019, by region. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1182841/circular-economy-investment-decision-region/ 
14. De Pascale, A., Di Vita, G., Giannetto, C., Ioppolo, G., Lanfranchi, M., Limosani, M., & Szopik-Depczyńska, K. (2023). The circular economy implementation at the European Union level. Past, present and future. Journal of Cleaner Production, 423, 138658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138658. 
15. Statista. (2025). Municipal solid waste generation per capita in 2020, and projections from 2030 to 2050, by scenario. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1607080/global-municipal-solid-waste-generation-per-capita-by-scenario/).
16. Burkovska, A., Shebanina, O., Lunkina, T., & Burkovska, A. (2022). Socio-psychological determinants of food security in Ukraine: causal aspect. Economic Studies Journal, 31(5), 145–162. https://www.iki.bas.bg/Journals/EconomicStudies/2022/2022-5/09_Anna-Burkovska.pdf.