We explore an attempt to derive a set of indicators reflecting a just transition to a circular economy (CE) at a supply chain level. Here we build upon the theoretical work presented in Purvis and Genovese (2023) with an account of an empirical exercise following the standard methodological steps outlined for the creation of a measurement dashboard. A literature review of existing CE indicators for supply chains was therefore followed by a Delphi approach which sought to understand and incorporate the expertise of CE scholars and practitioners. The 3 round Delphi incorporated a survey, and an individual, and group Analytical Hierarchy Process, as a standard technique to derive consensus from experts in terms of suitable indicator categories. Yet contestations observed during the consensus building exercises cast doubt on the suitability of our nominally consensus-driven approach, as well as the use of indicators themselves for our critical purposes. We describe the dilemmas precipitated by this failure of consensus, with reference to the inherent challenges to indicator frameworks and a series of questions for better research design. The paper also reflects on the fundamental contradictions related to the use of indicators for inducing transformational dynamics, and problematises the desire for consensus, thereby paving the way for further research avenues.

中文翻译：

---

共识与争论：关于公正过渡到循环经济的指标框架发展的思考


我们探索了一种尝试，以得出一组反映供应链层面向循环经济 （CE） 的公正过渡的指标。在这里，我们以 Purvis 和 Genovese （2023） 中提出的理论工作为基础，并按照为创建测量仪表板概述的标准方法步骤进行了实证练习。因此，对供应链的现有 CE 指标进行文献综述后，采用了 Delphi 方法，该方法旨在理解和整合 CE 学者和从业者的专业知识。3 轮 Delphi 包含一项调查、一个个人和一组分析层次结构过程，作为一种标准技术，以根据合适的指标类别从专家那里获得共识。然而，在建立共识的练习中观察到的争议使人们对我们名义上以共识为导向的方法的适用性以及将指标本身用于我们的关键目的的适用性产生了怀疑。我们描述了这种共识失败所引发的困境，并参考了指标框架的固有挑战和一系列更好的研究设计问题。本文还反思了与使用指标诱导转型动力相关的基本矛盾，并对达成共识的渴望提出了问题，从而为进一步的研究途径铺平了道路。