Numerous indicators have been suggested as tools for assessing progress towards the circular economy (CE). However, it is unclear what specifically is captured by CE indicators and few studies have tested them on real cases. This review addresses this gap by describing and comparing the resource-related effects captured by existing resource-based product-level indicators and suggesting recommendations for their use and further development. First, the flows and processes quantified by product-level indicators are mapped on a novel flowchart model, which can also be used to select and develop indicators. Second, the indicators are tested on seven real cases. Third, indicator and life cycle assessment (LCA) results are compared. A significant divergence of indicators’ scope is found, where most capture a limited part of the product system. Moreover, important aspects of the CE are not captured: no indicator accounts for resource use in the use phase and there is limited attention to lifetime extension strategies. Additional limitations are the difficulties to assess multiple use-cycles and that most indicators cannot capture absolute mass variations, thus neglecting mass reduction strategies. The testing reveals that using a set of single-focus indicators may be necessary to outline trade-offs. Multi-focus indicators are sometimes harder to analyse but provide a more comprehensive assessment. The testing also illustrates that indicator and LCA results are not necessarily aligned. The latter provides information on environmental impacts and can point to trade-offs between impact categories such as climate change, resource use and land use, indicating that CE indicators cannot easily replace LCA.

许多指标已被建议作为评估循环经济 (CE) 进展的工具。然而，目前尚不清楚 CE 指标具体捕获了什么，并且很少有研究在实际案例中对其进行测试。本次审查通过描述和比较现有的基于资源的产品级指标捕捉到的资源相关影响，并就其使用和进一步开发提出建议，从而弥补了这一差距。首先，将产品级指标量化的流程和过程映射到一个新颖的流程图模型上，该模型也可用于选择和制定指标。其次，指标在七个实际案例中进行了测试。第三，比较指标和生命周期评估（LCA）结果。发现指标的范围存在显着差异，其中大多数捕获产品系统的有限部分。而且，CE 的重要方面没有被捕获：没有指标说明使用阶段的资源使用，并且对寿命延长策略的关注有限。其他限制是难以评估多个使用周期，并且大多数指标无法捕捉绝对质量变化，因此忽略了质量减少策略。测试表明，可能需要使用一组单一焦点指标来概述权衡。多焦点指标有时更难分析，但可以提供更全面的评估。测试还说明指标和 LCA 结果不一定一致。后者提供有关环境影响的信息，并可以指出气候变化、资源利用和土地利用等影响类别之间的权衡，