The circular economy (CE) can be a driver for sustainability and CE can be promoted and supported by the creation of new and innovative business models, which embed CE principles into their value propositions throughout the value chains. This study focuses on the environmental value propositions of the CE business models. The term environmental value proposition refers here to an absolute value being a promise of environmental improvement, which a company provides to the environment by its impacts throughout the whole value chain. The aim of this study is to outline a framework for evaluating the environmental value propositions of CE business models. The framework consists of an environmental value propositions table (EVPT) and a step-by-step approach towards an evaluation process. The framework was tested in three CE business model cases. The outlined framework enables a better understanding of circular economy principles, combining them with the environmental value proposition. With the framework, companies can plan and design new CE business models or they can verify intended environmental benefits and analyse their contribution to sustainability. The biggest challenges, when applying the framework, were related to the estimation of environmental benefits gained from the environmental value propositions at the system level. In the future, intensive scientific work should concentrate on developing environmental assessment methods specifically for companies developing new CE business models.

Summary The concept of eco‐efficiency is commonly referred to as a business link to sustainable development. In this article, ecoefficiency is examined at a regional level as an approach to promoting the competitiveness of economic activities in the Finnish Kymenlaakso region and mitigating their harmful impacts on the environment. The aim is to develop appropriate indicators for monitoring changes in the eco‐efficiency of the region. A starting point is to produce indicators for the environmental and economic dimensions of regional development and use them for measuring regional eco‐efficiency. The environmental impact indicators are based on a life‐cycle assessment method, producing different types of environmental impact indicators: pressure indicators (e.g., emissions of CO2), impact category indicators (e.g., CO2 equivalents in the case of climate change), and a total impact indicator (aggregating different impact category indicator results into a single value). Environmental impact indicators based on direct material input, total material input, and total material requirement of the Kymenlaakso region are also assessed. The economic indicators used are the gross domestic product, the value added, and the output of the main economic sectors of Kymenlaakso. In the eco‐efficiency assessment, the economic and environmental impact indicators are monitored in the same graph. In a few cases eco‐efficiency ratios can also be calculated (the economic indicators are divided by the environmental indicators). Output (= value added + intermediate consumption) is used as an economic indicator related to the environmental impact indicators, which also cover the upstream processes of the region's activities. In the article, we also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of using the different environmental impact indicators.

Greening the economy has been widely discussed as a new strategy for simultaneously reducing environmental pressures, promoting economic growth and enhancing social well-being. Indicators are one tool that can be used to describe the development of green growth. This paper presents and evaluates the process of attempting to build a set of policy-relevant key indicators of green growth for Finland. The challenges of developing a cross-scale indicator set integrating different sectors and levels of society are identified and discussed. It is argued that both the experts preparing the indicators and the potential users will benefit from a collaborative process that aims not only to build a shared awareness of the key issues of green growth but also to foster a realistic understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the indicator approach. Key challenges include data availability, right balance between different indicator selection criteria, systemic understanding of the relationships between indicators, and the variable usage contexts of the indicators.

No abstract

No abstract