The Circular Footprint Formula

Is sharing emissions in a circular economy possible?

Introduction to the circular footprint formula

When we talk about a circular economy, one question always comes up:
how should we share the emissions linked to recycled materials?

The EU’s Circular Footprint Formula (CFF) is one way to address this. It sets rules for how both the benefits and burdens of recycling are divided between products, so the same benefit is not counted twice.

The simple version: linear economy

In a linear economy, calculating a product’s emissions is fairly straightforward:

1. Count the emissions from extracting the raw materials (like crude oil or metals)
2. Count the emissions from turning those materials into components and assembling the product
3. Add all the transport from step 1 until the final costumer transport to the end customer
4. Add disposal at the end of the product’s life (often landfill or incineration, without recycling)

The more complex version: circular economy

In a circular economy, things get more complicated. Products are designed to use recycled materials where possible, and once they reach the end of their life, components are often sorted by material group for recycling. Ideally, each material gets a new life.

But here’s the tricky part:

• Who gets the benefit for the recycled material?
• Who takes on the burden of producing it?
• And where exactly does the “old product” end and the “new product” begin?

Each colour corresponds to a loop within the material’s lifecycle. The illustration visualises the flow of materials through loops, highlighting how their proportions shift as circularity increases.

The table and stool example

Imagine a table with a 100% recycled aluminium frame and a 100% virgin PET plastic top. At the end of life of the table, both materials will be recycled, to be transformed into a stool:

• Should the table carry part of the burden from the original mining of the aluminium that provided the recycled aluminium used in the table?
• Should the PET plastic carry the burden of the recycling process at the end of life, that links it to the new stool?
• Or should the new stool take that burden, since it wouldn’t exist without the recycling of the table?

From an environmental point of view, the total emissions are the same no matter how we split them. If the total is 10 kg CO2eq, whether it is split as 2 + 8 or 5 + 5 makes no difference in the total.

But it matters a lot for reporting. If both the original product and the new product claim the full recycling benefit, we end up with 200% benefit in the system. That’s double counting and it is exactly what the CFF is designed to avoid.

 

Double counting

Double counting usually happens unintentionally, due to unclear rules.
For example:

• Company a makes the table and claims 100% of the benefit for using recycled aluminium.
• Company b recycles aluminium from the old table to create the new stool and also claims 100% of the benefit.

The result? The same environmental benefit is counted twice.

 

Everyone should do their best

It can feel disappointing when your product doesn’t get to keep all the benefits of being circular. But the real advantage is building a system that works fairly for everyone and keeps materials in play for as long as possible.

The CFF recognises both:

• The use of recycled materials in your product.
• The recyclability of your product at the end of its life.

You can support this by using resources wisely and designing your products so they can be easily disassembled.

The CFF in practice. The table’s journey

The CFF looks at three dimensions to decide how to share benefits and burdens:

1. Material – where the material comes from, what happens to it during use, and how recycling it can avoid the extraction of new virgin material.
2. Energy – what happens to materials that can’t be recycled but can be used to generate energy by being incinerated.
3. Disposal – what happens to materials that are neither recycled nor used for energy recovery.

 

1. Material: The aluminium advantage

The aluminium in the table’s frame and legs is a circular material:

• It can be recycled almost endlessly without losing quality.
• Recycling uses only a fraction of the energy needed for virgin aluminium production.

In Europe, recycling rates for aluminium are high because demand is strong and collection systems work well.

The pet tabletop, on the other hand, is recyclable in theory but not always in practice. If it’s glued, stapled, or mixed with other materials, separation becomes difficult, lowering its value in CFF terms.

2. Energy: When recycling isn’t possible

Some tabletops may be too contaminated or damaged to recycle. These could be sent to energy recovery, where they are burned to produce heat or electricity.

The CFF considers:

• The share of material sent to energy recovery.
• The emissions saved by replacing fossil fuels.
• The emissions caused by burning plus the loss of any material that could have been recycled instead.

3. Disposal: The end of the life
   If the table is thrown away as bulk waste without being taken apart, both the aluminium and pet will likely not be recycled and will instead be lost.
   This part of the assessment measures those losses, showing their climate impact and making it clear where the recycling process stops working.

 

Why follow the table?

By tracking the table through all three dimensions, we see how design choices and material combinations directly affect its circular profile.

Designing for disassembly, avoiding problematic material mixes, and implementing take-back schemes can all improve the CFF outcome and keep valuable materials in circulation.