The circular economy (CE) is considered a key economic model to meet the challenge of sustainable development. Strenous efforts are focused on the transformation of waste into resources that can be reintroduced into the economic system through proper management. In this way, the linear and waste-producing value chain problems are solved, making them circular, and more sustainable solutions are proposed in those chains already benefiting from circular processes, so that waste generation and waste are reduced on the one hand, and on the other, the non-efficient consumption of resources decreases. In the face of this current tide, there is another option that proposes a certain nuance, based on the premise that, although circular systems promote sustainability, it does not mean that they are in themselves sustainable, given that, in the first place, the effects of CE on sustainable development are not fully known and, on the other hand, the CE model includes the flow of materials, with only scant consideration of the flow of non-material resources (water, soil and energy). This paper aims to contrast both currents from an empirical viewpoint. To achieve this, a sustainability analysis of the circular waste management systems measured through a sustainability indicator, the carbon footprint (CF), as a main sustainable indicator in climate change action, is carried out. A crucial difference between circular models that promote waste management and those that do not is found in the collective systems of extended producer responsibility (or CPR). One of the most efficient recycling processes in Europe, waste tire management, has been chosen. Thus, the aim is to verify the sense of including environmental sustainability indicators, as CF, in the process of these systems. A sustainability management model (SBA) applies to End-of Life tire collection systems (ELT). This model is based on the accumulation of environmental impacts through the activities that generate them. To be transparent, this study requires a publicly recognized CF, so the study is focused on SIGNUS, the main Spanish waste tires CPR. The results achieved allow us to conclude that CF is much lower using CPR than non-linear processes. Despite the role that CPR have in the management and use of waste as secondary raw material, it is a priority to focus efforts on their redesign in order to reduce waste. In terms of circular economy, all actions are necessary in order to achieve system efficiencies, even when externalities occur in this process.

中文翻译：

---

循环经济中废物管理模式的可持续性

循环经济（CE）被认为是应对可持续发展挑战的关键经济模式。努力将废物转化为可以通过适当管理重新引入经济系统的资源。通过这种方式，线性和产生废物的价值链问题得到解决，使其循环，并在那些已经受益于循环过程的链中提出更可持续的解决方案，从而一方面减少废物产生和浪费，另一方面二是资源的非有效消耗减少。面对当前的潮流，还有另一种选择提出了一定的细微差别，其前提是，虽然循环系统促进了可持续性，但这并不意味着它们本身是可持续的，因为首先，CE对可持续发展的影响尚不完全清楚，另一方面，CE模型包含了物质流动，很少考虑非物质资源（水、土壤和能源）的流动。本文旨在从经验的角度对比这两种潮流。为实现这一目标，通过可持续性指标碳足迹 (CF) 作为气候变化行动中的主要可持续指标，对循环废物管理系统进行了可持续性分析。促进废物管理的循环模型与不促进废物管理的循环模型之间的一个重要区别在于生产者延伸责任（或 CPR）的集体系统。废轮胎管理是欧洲最有效的回收流程之一，已被选中。因此，目的是验证将环境可持续性指标作为 CF 纳入这些系统的过程中的意义。可持续性管理模型 (SBA) 适用于报废轮胎收集系统 (ELT)。该模型基于通过产生环境影响的活动而累积的环境影响。为透明起见，这项研究需要公开认可的 CF，因此该研究的重点是 SIGNUS，西班牙主要的废轮胎 CPR。取得的结果使我们能够得出结论，使用 CPR 的 CF 比非线性过程低得多。尽管 CPR 在废物作为二次原材料的管理和使用方面发挥了作用，但优先考虑的是重新设计以减少废物。在循环经济方面，为了实现系统效率，所有行动都是必要的，