Search

The debate about the negative impacts that production and consumption cause on the environment is in vogue. Strategies that point to a sustainable, healthy, and resilient path are being sought. One of these paths is the Circular Economy, which emerges as an alternative to reduce the socio-environmental impacts caused by the linear model of production-use-disposal, presenting opportunities to generate revenue, income, and wealth with circular processes. However, despite the circular economy being considered an essential strategy to improve overall performance toward sustainability in its three dimensions, recent research has shown that the predominant focus of circular approaches is on the economic and environmental dimensions. At the same time, the social aspects still need to be explored. This article addresses this problem, aiming to explore circular economy environmental, economic, and social elements in three economic blocs from 2000 to 2020 using the Five Sector Sustainability Model, establishing a baseline to co-create an equitable and regenerative future. The results showed that ASEAN in 2000 occupied the first position in the general ranking. The European Union had the best classification in the economic sector, and Mercosur was the best regarding social benefits. In 2020, while the European bloc was better positioned in the general ranking, the South American bloc occupied the last post in almost all sectors. Comparatively, the highest-ranked bloc in 2020 in overall sustainability is more in line with the UN SDG due to circular actions oriented towards the three fundamental pillars of sustainability. • CE advocates reducing dependence on finite resources. • The 5SEnSU model is used to monitor sustainability performance. • The sustainability of ASEAN, EU and Mercosur was analyzed. • Economic development influenced the environmental issues of the studied blocks. • EU is the highest-ranked bloc for overall sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is known that the current linear socioeconomic system, characterized by "production-use-destination," is unsustainable and the leading cause of the depletion of natural resources. In the search for sustainable development, several actions to preserve resources in use for as long as possible have been proposed in recent decades, such as cleaner production, ecoefficiency, industrial ecology, industrial ecosystems, industrial symbiosis, and the circular economy. Although circularity and sustainability are increasingly present on the agenda of academics, entrepreneurs, and government sectors, the relationship between the two concepts is still under construction. In this sense, this work aims to verify, using the Five Sectors Model of Sustainability, the relationship between circularity and sustainable development in ASEAN, Mercosur, and the EU, considering economic, social, and environmental indicators in the periods between 2000 and 2020. The selected indicators with their respective goals were applied and weighted through Goal Programming. From the primary and secondary data analysis, it was not possible to conclude that circularity alone guarantees sustainability, despite contributing significantly to sustainable development. However, the results obtained in the 5SEnSU model made it possible to verify that the EU has a superior performance for sustainable development of the other two blocks and that the impacts generated in the economic system (sector 3) of the analyzed blocks benefited social sectors (4 and 5) to the detriment of environmental integrity (sectors 1 and 2). Some challenges still need to be mitigated, such as those related to excessive consumption and waste discharge, so that a circular economy can effectively contribute to global sustainability. • The sustainability of three economic blocs – ASEAN, Mercosur and EU – is evaluated. • Circularity indicators are combined with socioeconomic indicators to evaluate sustainability. • Circularity indicators are organized using the Five Sectors Sustainability Model. • ASEAN and Mercosur still pursue progress in detriment of the environment. • Deficiencies that limit the blocs' ability to adopt a sustainable approach are highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]