The motivation behind the index is grounded in hard geopolitical arithmetic. In 2023, 95 percent of the EU’s imports of rare earth elements came from just three countries: China accounted for 46 percent, Russia 28 percent, and Malaysia 20 percent. Energy tells a similar story of exposure and rapid, painful adjustment. The share of natural gas imported from Russia fell from 48 percent in early 2021 to 17 percent by 2025, with the United States now supplying nearly half of the bloc’s liquefied natural gas. Against this backdrop, the European Green Deal, the Circular Economy Action Plan and the Raw Materials Initiative have all reframed circularity not merely as an environmental strategy but as a pillar of what EU policy calls open strategic autonomy — a deliberate balance between global openness and reduced dependency.

What distinguishes the new research from earlier attempts to rank countries on circularity is its conceptual target. Existing composite indices, the authors argue, essentially ask how circular a country’s economy has become, relying heavily on environmental indicators such as recycling rates, resource efficiency and emissions control. The SRI instead measures resilience-enabling capacity: the structural, productive and innovation-related conditions that determine whether an economy can absorb shocks, adapt and transform. To build it, the researchers standardized seven candidate indicators — circular material use rate, energy import dependency, economic globalization, consumption-based greenhouse gas footprint, environmental patents per capita, the UNCTAD Productive Capacities Index, and an energy diversification measure — and applied principal component analysis, a statistical technique that compresses correlated variables into a smaller set of uncorrelated components.

The statistics delivered a strikingly clean result. A single dominant component explained 56.4 percent of the total variance, with all remaining components showing eigenvalues below one, and a factor analysis confirmed the identical structure. Internal consistency, measured by Cronbach’s alpha, reached 0.80, comfortably above the conventional 0.70 threshold. Energy indicators, despite their obvious theoretical relevance, refused to cohere with the rest: across extensive robustness testing that included renewable energy share and energy intensity, their loadings on the first component ranged only from 0.06 to 0.25, compared with 0.35 to 0.54 for the core five indicators. Energy performance, the authors conclude, constitutes an empirically distinct dimension — a separate energy resilience construct — rather than part of the structural capacity captured by the SRI.

The weighting structure of the final index is where the study delivers its headline finding. The formula reads SRI = 0.209·NCMU + 0.251·NEIG − 0.263·NGHGFP + 0.273·NIC + 0.322·NPCI, with the coefficients derived from the data itself rather than assigned by judgment. Productive capacity carries the heaviest weight at 0.322, followed by innovation capacity at 0.273 and economic globalization at 0.251. The circular material use rate contributes positively but modestly at 0.209, while the greenhouse gas footprint enters negatively at −0.263. Innovation and productive capacity also showed the strongest pairwise correlation in the raw data, at r = 0.741. The message is that the technological and industrial base of an economy — not its recycling bin — is currently the strongest statistical companion of sustainable resilience.

Applied across the EU-26, the index reveals a Union split into three tiers along a pronounced north-west to south-east gradient. The high-resilience group comprises the Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg, Germany, Belgium, Finland, Ireland and Sweden, with average scores between 62.0 and 87.9 on a rescaled 0–100 range. A broad middle tier, including Estonia, Austria, France, Czechia, Spain, Italy, Poland and Latvia, clusters around the EU-26 average of 45.7. At the bottom sit Portugal, Lithuania, Greece, Slovakia, Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania, with averages from 5.5 to 28.7 — countries where low circularity coexists with weak productive and innovative capacity, a pattern a circularity-only index would misread as a simple recycling gap.

The longitudinal picture is equally revealing. The cross-country standard deviation of SRI scores fell from 26.34 in 2010 to 18.72 in 2022, a decline of nearly 29 percent, signalling partial convergence driven mainly by catch-up among laggards. Croatia posted the largest gain at +18.83 points, followed by Latvia, Romania, Lithuania and Slovakia. Yet the convergence is partly a story of decline at the top: Finland lost 23.88 points and Luxembourg 22.57, with falling innovation capacity — not environmental deterioration — driving the slide in Finland and Denmark. Slovenia’s drop from mid-table to the lower tier was propelled by a sharp erosion of productive capacity, despite improving circularity and emissions performance. The EU-26 average itself barely moved, fluctuating between 43.8 and 47.2 over twelve years.

Perhaps the most compelling validation of the index comes from its response to crises. Using fixed-effects panel regressions with structural break tests, the researchers found statistically significant downward shifts in the SRI only around the two great global shocks of the period: the COVID-19 pandemic, which produced an immediate drop of 4.44 points followed by a recovery trend of 4.72 points per year, and the Russia–Ukraine war, which coincided with a 5.09-point decline. Neither the European debt crisis nor Brexit registered a significant panel-wide break. The index, in other words, appears to measure exactly what it claims: the capacity of economies to withstand systemic, exogenous disruption rather than localized political turbulence.

For policymakers, the implications cut against one-size-fits-all circularity mandates. In Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, the barriers to a circular transition are structural rather than regulatory, and the authors suggest embedding circular economy conditionalities within existing Cohesion Policy instruments such as the European Regional Development Fund and the Just Transition Fund, rather than pursuing separate funding lines. For mid-tier countries with productive capacity but uneven innovation, cross-border initiatives like the Interregional Innovation Investments mechanism could help. For the leaders losing ground, the priority is sustaining innovation intensity through instruments such as Horizon Europe partnerships. The study also points to accelerating the Critical Raw Materials Act and related regulations as the most direct current bridge between circularity and resilience policy.

So is circular the new resilient? The authors’ own answer, delivered with empirical precision, is: not yet, but increasingly so. The circular economy contributes meaningfully to sustainable resilience, and its weight is expected to grow as the EU pushes toward its target of doubling the circular material use rate by 2030 — an ambition whose full effects fall largely beyond the study’s 2022 cutoff. What the evidence demands, the researchers argue, is not a retreat from circular policy but better sequencing: countries lacking the productive and innovation infrastructure to scale circular strategies cannot be expected to harvest resilience gains from recycling targets alone. The Sustainable Resilience Index offers a benchmarking tool for identifying exactly where those enabling conditions are missing — and, as the EU’s resource dependencies tighten, that diagnostic may prove as valuable as the transition itself.

Subject of Research: Measuring the relationship between circular economy performance and sustainable economic resilience across EU member states

Article Title: Is circular the new resilient? Rethinking EU performance through a new sustainable resilience index

Article References: Chovancová, J., & Petruška, I. (2026). Is circular the new resilient? Rethinking EU performance through a new sustainable resilience index. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 32, Article 101509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2026.101509

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1016/j.indic.2026.101509

Keywords: circular economy, economic resilience, Sustainable Resilience Index, European Union, principal component analysis, innovation capacity, productive capacity, critical raw materials, energy security, composite indicators, EU policy, convergence

The central question addressed by the study is deceptively simple: does the level of a nation’s productive capacity condition the extent to which gender inclusion translates into better governance? Productive capacity, in the economic literature, refers to the combination of resources, infrastructure, technological capability, institutional quality, and human capital that determines what an economy can produce and how efficiently it can do so. Economies with high productive capacity tend to have diversified industrial bases, reliable energy and transport systems, and educated workforces, while low-capacity economies often depend on narrow resource extraction and face persistent institutional constraints.

The theoretical logic connecting these concepts runs in both directions. On one side, stronger governance—characterized by rule of law, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, control of corruption, and accountability—can expand opportunities for women by enforcing anti-discrimination protections, opening access to education and credit, and creating formal channels for political participation. On the other side, greater gender inclusion can improve governance outcomes by diversifying the perspectives represented in decision-making bodies, reducing corruption risks, and aligning public policy more closely with the needs of the full population rather than a narrow subset.

Productive capacity enters this relationship as a potentially decisive moderating factor. Where economies possess the infrastructure and institutional depth to convert inclusion into concrete participation—through functioning labor markets, accessible education systems, and administrative machinery capable of implementing policy—gender inclusion is more likely to produce measurable governance gains. In settings where productive capacity is weak, formal inclusion may remain largely symbolic, with women represented in institutions that lack the resources or authority to effect change.

This distinction matters for policymakers because it suggests that promoting gender inclusion in isolation may yield disappointing results if the underlying economic and institutional substrate is underdeveloped. Conversely, investments in productive capacity—industrial diversification, digital infrastructure, energy reliability, and skills development—may amplify the returns to inclusion policies such as gender quotas, leadership training, and legal reforms. The study’s framing implies that the two agendas are complements rather than substitutes: capacity builds the stage on which inclusion can perform.

The research sits within a broader empirical literature in development economics and political science that has documented correlations between women’s political representation and outcomes such as reduced corruption, greater investment in public goods like health and education, and more durable peace agreements. Cross-national studies have repeatedly found that higher shares of women in legislatures are associated with stronger governance indicators, although establishing causality remains methodologically challenging because gender norms, income levels, and institutional quality tend to move together over time.

By introducing productive capacity as a moderating variable, the study offers a way to account for heterogeneity in these findings. Countries at similar income levels may differ sharply in their structural capabilities, and the same inclusion policy may therefore produce different results depending on whether the surrounding economy can absorb and institutionalize the change. This perspective aligns with structuralist traditions in development economics, which emphasize that outcomes depend not only on policy choices but on the productive structure of the economy itself.

The publication appears in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, an open-access journal published by Springer Nature that publishes peer-reviewed research spanning the social sciences and humanities. The article carries the DOI 10.1038/s41599-026-08982-3 and is available through the journal’s website. As with all work in this field, the findings invite further empirical testing across country samples, time periods, and measurement approaches, particularly as new datasets on economic complexity and institutional performance become available.

For researchers, the study underscores the value of interaction-based designs that test not just whether two variables are related, but under what conditions that relationship strengthens or weakens. For practitioners in international development and governance reform, the message is that gender inclusion strategies are most likely to succeed when they are embedded in broader programs of capacity building—ensuring that the institutions women join are equipped to deliver the improvements that inclusive governance promises.

One useful way to situate the study is within the long-running debate over how to measure both of its core constructs. Gender inclusion is typically operationalized through indicators such as female labor force participation, seats held by women in national parliaments, educational attainment gaps, and indices that composite these dimensions into a single score. Each measure captures a different facet of inclusion: parliamentary representation reflects formal political voice, while labor force participation reflects economic integration. Because these dimensions do not always move together—a country may have high female employment alongside minimal political representation—researchers must be explicit about which aspect of inclusion they are testing, and the moderating role of productive capacity may differ across them.

Productive capacity presents its own measurement challenges. Recent work by international organizations has developed composite indices that combine measures of energy infrastructure, transport and digital connectivity, structural change away from primary commodities, and the sophistication of exported goods. A related strand of literature on economic complexity infers productive knowledge from the diversity and ubiquity of the products a country exports, treating the export basket as a window into the accumulated capabilities of its firms and workforce. These approaches share the premise that what an economy can do is distinct from how much income it currently generates, which is precisely the distinction the study leverages when it argues that capacity, rather than income alone, conditions the governance returns to inclusion.

The historical record of gender quota adoption offers a concrete illustration of why this conditioning matters. Well over one hundred countries have now introduced legislative quotas of some form, ranging from reserved seats to voluntary party quotas, and the resulting variation in outcomes is striking. In some settings, quotas produced durable cohorts of legislators who reshaped committee agendas and oversight practices; in others, women entered chambers with limited committee assignments, short tenures, or weak party support, and the anticipated governance effects failed to materialize. Observers of these divergent trajectories frequently point to features that resemble productive capacity in the study’s sense: the professionalism of the civil service, the reliability of public administration, and the broader economic base that gives legislatures real resources to allocate.

The corruption channel deserves particular attention because it has generated one of the most cited empirical regularities in this literature. Cross-national analyses have repeatedly reported that higher shares of women in parliament are associated with lower perceived corruption, and early interpretations framed this as evidence that women are inherently less tolerant of corrupt exchanges. Subsequent scholarship has complicated that reading, suggesting that the relationship may reflect the institutional environments in which women gain office rather than any dispositional difference. Liberal democracies with strong rule of law both elect more women and exhibit less corruption, making it difficult to isolate the effect of gender itself. A moderating variable such as productive capacity offers a more structural interpretation: the same woman legislator operates within very different opportunity structures depending on the administrative and economic machinery surrounding her office.

There is also a macroeconomic dimension worth noting. Growth research over the past two decades has emphasized that sustained convergence depends on structural transformation—the reallocation of labor from low-productivity agriculture toward manufacturing and services—rather than on factor accumulation alone. If gender inclusion contributes to governance, and governance contributes to the quality of public investment and the enforcement of property rights, then the interaction the study examines may feed back into the very productive capacity that conditions it. This possibility of circular causation is a familiar challenge in development research, and it cautions against reading any single estimated coefficient as a complete description of the system.

Methodologically, studies of this kind typically rely on panel data covering many countries and years, with interaction terms used to test whether the slope linking inclusion to governance varies with the level of capacity. Such designs face well-known hurdles: omitted variables that correlate with both capacity and governance, reverse causality running from institutional quality to economic structure, and the sensitivity of results to sample composition and estimator choice. Robustness in this literature is usually assessed by varying measures, excluding regions, and testing alternative governance indices drawn from expert assessments, survey-based perceptions, and objective indicators. Readers interpreting the findings should keep in mind that interaction effects in cross-national panels are notoriously sensitive to these choices, even when the underlying theory is sound.

The policy translation also requires care. If capacity amplifies the returns to inclusion, then sequencing becomes a live question: should donors and governments invest in industrial and administrative capability first, or pursue inclusion and capacity simultaneously? The complementarity framing suggests simultaneous pursuit, since waiting for capacity to mature before opening political space risks entrenching exclusion, while pursuing inclusion without capacity risks symbolic representation. Practical programs that pair quota reforms with civil service professionalization, digital government infrastructure, and vocational education embody this logic, though rigorous evaluations of such paired interventions remain scarce.

Finally, the study contributes to a growing effort to bring structural economics and political sociology into a single analytical frame. Much of the governance literature has treated institutions as exogenous rules to be transplanted, while much of the gender literature has treated norms as the primary constraint. By foregrounding the productive structure of the economy as the terrain on which both rules and norms operate, the research points toward an integrated account in which economic capabilities, social inclusion, and institutional quality co-evolve—a perspective likely to inform the next generation of empirical work on development outcomes.

Subject of Research: The moderating role of productive capacity in the relationship between gender inclusion and governance quality.

Article Title: Gender inclusion and governance: the role of productive capacity

Article References: Gender inclusion and governance: the role of productive capacity. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41599-026-08982-3

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s41599-026-08982-3

Keywords: gender inclusion, governance, productive capacity, political participation, institutional quality, development economics, women in politics, economic complexity, public policy, corruption, human capital, Social Sciences Communications