Assessing Circularity in the Wood Industry—Methodology, Tool and Results

Abstract

The article presents a complete approach for the wood industry for assessing the state of circular economy adoption by companies. A methodology for achieving this purpose is proposed and then implemented with the help of a specific questionnaire. The study is based on a literature survey with two components, one relating to reports on the concept of circularity and one relating to the methodological aspects of determining and measuring the progress of companies. Starting from these aspects and factoring in the sectoral evolution in Romania, the assessment directions and detailed questions for each are established essentially through a mind-mapping process. For validation, the questionnaire with seven evaluation viewpoints covered in 28 items is applied within the Romanian wood industry to 60 companies. The analysis of results is carried out using descriptive and inferential statical methods, such as ANOVA, showing good progress of the industry at company level, through individual efforts as well as the need to continue the transformation of the sector from the point of view of regulatory oversight and market acceptance. A set of recommendations for companies to advance their situation is proposed to help the maturation of the current circular approaches.

1. Introduction

The circular economy approach is one of the main trends leading the industrial and commercial transformation of national and supranational economies. The European Union, in particular, is highly committed to making this business and societal model a reality as soon as possible to help deal with the environmental and climate challenges of the present, through such globally recognized strategies as: the European Green Deal [1], the Circular Economy Action Plan [2] and A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe [3] strategy. Given the ambition of these programming documents and the currently unfolding results for a transformative framework for all member countries, it is not an overstatement to consider the circular economy a revolution that will impact consumer behavior, industrial processes, new product development and organizational frameworks. From new types of materials, to less detrimental and less resource intensive production methods to new types of supply chains and business relations, integrating the idea of circularity into our way of life has the potential to significantly change the way in which economic actors interact for a long period of time. According to Eurostat, in 2020, the timber industry in the union accounted for 23.2 billion EUR and over 500 thousand jobs [4], while at the same time handling one of the most valuable and easily recyclable raw materials in the manufacturing sector, thus being a prime candidate for implementing circular economy approaches.

Research in this area focuses either on the conceptual or methodological aspects of circularity or on the technical aspects incurred by creating new products from old components and materials (this is discussed in detail in Section 3 below). However, in order to enact these changes, it is necessary to develop the organizational capability to create and manage successfully, under economic efficiency conditions, a circular approach to the business that takes into account both hard (technology, materials, equipment) and the soft components(culture, awareness, skills).

For this purpose, the current paper sets out to develop a circular economy conformity evaluation model customized for use in the wood products industry that is operationalized in the form of a circularity audit tool and is then implemented over a significant sample of companies in the wood industry in Romania. This geographical localization has been chosen both due to the well-documented collaboration of the authors with companies active in this field and due to the fact that wood is being considered by its industrial and government stakeholders, as well as by the society at large, as “the main renewable resource of Romania” ([5], para. 1). For this reason, the companies to be included in the study are the most active forestry firms in the country, many of which also engage in wood product manufacturing. A successful transition to circularity in this domain has the potential to positively influence other industrial sectors.

2. Materials and Methods

For developing the proposed approach, the research demarche has included 6 stages (Figure 1), starting from the logical analysis of existing models and continuing up to the validation of the new proposal through conducting an industrial survey:

The methodology is constructed around the objective of developing and administering a questionnaire suitable for the situation of wood companies in Romania. Based on this foundation, a literature survey has been carried out that includes two stages, one dedicated to the implementation of circular economy approaches in the manufacturing sector at large, and the wood sector in particular, and the second dedicated to methodological aspects related to identifying and measuring innovation, technology management and circularity capability at the organizational level, which is significantly different than the product/process and the national economy levels. The literature has been selected using the ScienceDirect database and the Google Scholar search engine that link to other important databases, while the time period considered includes 2018 to 2023. However, over 70% of the literature consulted can also be found through Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science and other databases (Ebsco, ProQuest, PubMed). The search keywords for discovering relevant literature were innovation audit, circularity audit, innovation capability, wood industry circularity, wood circularity and manufacturing circularity, and the discovery option has been set to “most relevant results”.

Starting from the findings of the literature review (presented in Section 3), a mind map has been developed to discover the most important components of the transition to the circular economy in this field, especially for SMEs, as the authors collaborated closely with a company in Romania that was used as a control reference. This process took place in three different sessions that included an open brainstorming activity, the application of an affinity diagram to structure the results and validation of the conclusions after discussions with external stakeholder after a 30-day period dedicated to individual reflection had passed. Similarly, using the directions established through mind mapping and industry specific information, each of them has been further detailed into four questions or analysis items to be investigated in the form of a questionnaire (the seven directions and 28 questions are included in extenso in Section 3.2 below).

Data collection with this questionnaire was performed via email or phone interviews using a relevant database of wood industry companies in Romania, namely the one managed by the Association of Romanian Forestry Companies [6]. The database contains a total of 5201 companies and has been sorted in reverse order of the approved exploitation quantities. A total of 60 answers have been collected, curated and then processed for developing findings and conclusions, as well as recommendations for firms that are pursuing the circular economy paradigm. From a statistical point of view this sample size has been calculated using a 10% margin of error, a 90% confidence level and a 66,66% response distribution, leaning towards a positive approach to circularity adoption [7].

The template of the questionnaire allows for scoring of each of the 28 items from 1 to 5 (1 meaning minimal compliance to 5 meaning full compliance), calculating the sub-totals and total (with a minimum of 28 and a maximum of 140 points) and producing an easy-to-read and compare spider diagram. This type of visualization is conducive to the dissemination and discussion of best practices and is a possible support for developing improvement measures in this domain in the future.

The statistical analysis of the data has been achieved using descriptive statistics (both graphical and numerical results provide by the use of Microsoft Excel) and inferential statical methods, such as single factor and two-factor ANOVA without replication (also employing Microsoft Excel).

3. Results

3.1. Literature Review

For the first step in the current study, we performed a literature review of the most relevant topics related to developing and implementing tools that assess the capability of manufacturing companies to adopt circular economy models and practices. As mentioned in the section above, the focus was on aspects in line with the objective of the proposed study, namely the creation of innovation audit mechanisms and circularity frameworks at the company level proposed and published in the past five years.

The following two subsections detail the findings of the first steps of the methodology detailed in Section 2, relating the conclusions of our critical analysis of the currently reported results to the conception framework of the study. Both the circularity concept and the circularity measurement and assessment can be performed at the national, sectorial, organizational, processual and product levels, with the focus of the undertaking relying mostly on the way firms deal with this topic as an organizational function that needs to be developed and nurtured.

3.1.1. Conceptual Aspects of Circularity in the Wood Industry

Studies nowadays show the critical role played by developing the innovation potential of an enterprise. For example, [8] have conducted a survey in Saudi Arabia with 171 SME employees exploring five dimensions of innovation and concluded that the long-term viability of a business is positively influenced by all of them, with a special emphasis on process innovation. This school of thought can also be applied to the circular economy in the new economic, social and climatic context, with business sustainability depending on achieving a high level of circularity. Another study from China found that environmental strategy determined by external factors leads to improved innovation capability through the involvement of persuasive managers [9], further solidifying the conceptual unity on which the approach proposed in this article is substantiated. Innovation capability is a complex issue to which many of the companies’ characteristics, practices and processes contribute, but in the long run, a very positive effect has been noted for the absorptive capacity in knowledge-rich environments [10]. This should also hold true for transitioning to circular practices, as the socioeconomic environment is even more saturated with free and accessible know-how, policies and best practices in the field.

However, there exist disseminated results that ascertain that, while radical innovation depends significantly on developing a firm’s framework conditions for innovation capability, these do not significantly influence either incremental innovation or the translation of innovations into business results [11]. Since circular approaches usually start at a small scale and evolve towards a big impact [12], the literature consulted discusses solutions to the issue of directing innovation capability, for example through the continuous and integrated upgrade of digital solutions and individual creativity employed as mentioned by [13]. Another study in this direction, using as an sample 181 Chinese companies involved in production clusters, determined that radical innovation is also negatively impacted by the interplay of cooperation and constructive conflict within the associative structure, but incremental innovation is positively impacted by the same issue [14]. This conclusion suggests that SMEs, which are focused on incremental innovation, could also benefit in adopting circularity approaches from being members in a cluster, while large companies and innovative start-ups could fare better on their own, due to having the resources or the creativity needed for customization.

Concerning the analysis of companies and sectors that have undergone the transition to circular business models, a literature survey in the construction industry was performed starting with 78 recent articles [15] and identified eight current trends in the sector, among them the need to support the development of full business models including new regulations and standards, improved stakeholder and supplier relations and the employment of impactful digital tools. Also, an international survey [16] of 140 experts in the field of circular economy questioned about the success determinants of this approach in the construction industry has determined that advanced planning in the form of implementation scenarios, practical metrics and capacity development, together with digitalization and proper market plug-ins are critical to achieving this transition. The research we present further in this paper will mostly focus on the development of organizational capability and adjacent functions at the business unit level, including cultural, operational and technical aspects that support the demarche to transform the existing wood products industry into a more circular one.

From the perspective of companies as cogs in complex value chains, another research study performed in Indonesia, using a sample of 190 manufacturing SMEs [17], determined the importance of organizational managerial functions such as environmental management, ecodesign in new product development, and integrated supply chain cooperation to increase the speed of adoption of circular economy approaches in the wood furniture sector. Also, management approaches such as lean manufacturing have been confirmed by researchers [18] to complement material efficiency techniques and help considerably in the implementation of circular economy models in this industry. In an integrative sense, a cross-regional world study of sustainable supply chain management trends from 2021 [19] revealed that the most important topics to be approached in the future are related to the digital transformation and Industry 4.0, close loop chains designed for circularity and policy support for the private sector. It is relevant to the research we undertook that the disclosure of information and the close cooperation within and among industries has the potential to speed up the creation of a circular economic model in many countries.

The positive effect on innovation capability of purposeful intelligent transformation combined with the development of new skills for the human resource has been documented by [20] in the case of Chinese manufacturing companies. When considering this finding in relation with the strong drive for digitalization and adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies evidenced above, it is reasonable to conclude that adopting circularity and developing organizational capabilities for the circular economy could also be positively impacted by advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and the Internet of things/Edge and Ubiquitous computing. As such, we integrated in our outlook an open view towards supportive tech-based solutions that are yet to appear and influence the way in which wood products companies become involved in the circular economy model.

3.1.2. Methodological Aspects for Circularity Evaluation

Innovation auditing, as an instrument to determine and improve capability, served as a guideline for the approach presented in this article. This is based on the assumption of the authors that circularity and innovation, as multifaceted transformations that affect organizations, products, processes and stakeholders, can be measured in similar ways. The connections and resemblance of the two domains are also documented in the literature by [21,22,23]. The fields of capability assessment and auditing are also undergoing significant changes to deal with the innovation processes of modern companies characterized by transparency, intelligent solutions and servitization [24] or the elaborate and dynamically changing requirements of industries that rely heavily on advanced patented knowledge [25].

In order to prepare the questionnaire required by the survey we proposed, an important area of study focused on combining the determination of circularity capability and the employment of specific audit tools within a qualitative assessment endeavor. For this purpose, the topic of metrics and measurement of circularity at process and organization levels was investigated. Researchers from the UK proposed a circularity measurement tool [26] in the form of a package of eight questionnaires, each determining capabilities and results related to circular economy practices, which are then combined with the help of a mathematical formula to determine a level of circularity adoption on a nine-step scale, ranging from linear model firms (with no circularity) to circularity developers, which are actively implementing and refining the circular economy model. Academics in India advanced a circularity assessment model based on a balanced scorecard in the context of Industry 4.0 in a study [27] that applies graph theory and the matrix approach within a framework with six domains, which includes the environmental and social dimensions, enabling benchmarking as well as progress tracking for future improvement. As the interest for circular economy is developing, many tools and instruments (mostly online) appear to support companies as detailed in the article by [28], but one caveat that is also revealed by these authors is the need to standardize approaches and provide the necessary training so as to arrive at comparable and workable results. This situation is also valid for other environmentally supportive initiatives in order to increase their performance, as determined through auditing in the case of the plastic recycling industry [29]. It can be noted that the subject is approached through a variety of methods that draw inspiration from managerial instruments validated in other contexts when supporting the competitiveness efforts of manufacturers.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation is one of the best known promoters and supporters of the circular economy adoption, providing know-how and tools to many interested parties. In the case of the material circularity indicator, there are authors who propose mathematical models to adapt it to construction materials, which may include wood-based materials, enabling a more precise determining of circularity performance around the concept of substance flow [30]. Additionally, the determination of the degree of circularity that a company and its processes and products exhibit should take into account both objective factors, such as the relationship of mass, energy and time over the production cycle [31], and subjective ones, such as market sensibilities and communication possibilities [32], in order to achieve a holistic and functional approach that is at the same time scientifically correct, socially acceptable and economically useful. In effect, these research studies sketch out what is called a life-cycle management archetype for circularity as the backbone of a firm and its processes and products.

By using a different environmental protection approach, namely the cleaner production audit paradigm, researchers [33] have found that Chinese manufacturing companies were capable of significantly reducing harmful emissions, thus supporting the idea that monitoring and environmental conformance frameworks has the potential to contribute to real-world improvements in the quality of the environment. Production based on reclaimed wood has become a common practice in the past few years, with many tailor-made offerings appearing and with the added benefit that the positive environmental and social impacts of new companies undergoing this transition has the ability to self-promote within online and offline communities [34]. At the same time, a survey of 268 customers of green and circular products in Romania [35] found a significant correlation among satisfaction and knowledge about these products and recommends increased scientific information dissemination about the topic, in parallel with policy and regulatory interventions to speed up the achievement of the circular economy paradigm. By considering these articles, we must also conclude that one aspect of the circular economy transition that is required within our approach is the integration of the efforts inside the organization (ranging from technology to human resources) to the efforts and changes in the external environment (customers, markets, regulators, financiers, etc.).

In the following, a summary table of the studied literature is presented, highlighting each influence on the survey carried out (

Table 1. Literature review results.

Study/Article Reference	Main Take Away	Implementation in Survey
[8]	Split evaluation of sustainability performance	Developing 7 distinct directions to assess circularity
[9]	Role of managers and their style in company results	Questions about organizational approach to circularity
[10]	Contribution of knowledge and know-how to innovation	Questions about education and training, and external support and know-how
[11]	Importance of framework conditions for radical innovation and its lack of importance for incremental innovation	Questions circular product features and circular process characteristics
[13]	Impact of digitalization and employee characteristics	Questions about education and training, and adoption by customers and society
[14]	Importance of cooperation for increment innovation and its lack of importance for radical innovation	Questions about mechanisms and partnerships and about external support
[15]	Circular economy trends in the construction industry, a client of the wood products industry	Questions about external support and funding and adoption by customers and society
[16,17]	Success factors of transition to the circular economy in the construction industry	Questions in all area of the questionnaire developed for the current study
[18]	Lean management practices in circular economy	Questions about the organizational approach and process characteristics
[19]	Supply chain management trends and international collaboration	Questions about partnerships and adoption by society
[20]	Skills needed for sustainable innovation	Questions about education and training
[24,25]	Characteristics of modern innovation processes	Questions about the organizational approach and know-how
[26,27]	Split evaluation of circularity practices and mathematical modeling	Developing 7 distinct directions to assess circularity and the ranking system
[28]	Circularity evaluation questions and tools	Developing 7 distinct directions to assess circularity and the off-line tool (audit questionnaire in Excel, with automated formulas and graphs)
[29,30,33]	Cleaner production auditing methodology	Circularity audit process concept and application method
[31,32]	Life-cycle concepts applied in production companies	Overall logic of the survey, sequence of categories and questions
[34,35]	Circular products and practices adoption	Mode of approaching and questioning companies

):

3.2. Questionnaire Development and Content

A number of seven assessment directions have been established by the research team starting from the considerations of the literature review and its own experience working in the wood industry, the manufacturing sector and in quality, environmental, technological and innovation auditing. Each of the main directions has been elucidated into four items detailing the most important aspects related to that topic. The method used for arriving at this result was the mind-mapping technique applied by the team in three successive stages, to refine the final result. For each questionnaire item, an evaluation scale from one to five is used, ranging from complete disagreement to complete agreement. Thus, the total score of the evaluation can range from 28 to 140 (

Table 2. Questionnaire and items used for circular economy assessment.

Circular Economy Compliance Audit
Company data:	Score	Contact person:
E-mail and phone:		Survey date:
Interval: from 1-total disagreement to 5-total agreement		Answer/Details
Organizational approach to circularity
Does the organization use dedicated organizational structures for circularity?
Does the company implement specific circularity policies/measures?
Does the organization carry out an assessment of circularity performance?
Is the supplier selection process based on circularity issues?
Circular features related to the products
Do products have the capacity for the recyclability of components (e.g., unmixed materials)?
Are the products easy to repair, reuse, refurbish by the customer/company?
Do products exhibit modularity and/or ease of (de)assembly?
Are there ongoing efforts to minimize the environmental footprint?
Circular characteristics related to the processes
Is waste/scrap recycled and reused in production processes?
Does the company use renewable energy and/or energy recovery?
Are there biotechnologies implemented to mitigate environmental impact?
Does the company use carbon capture and sequestration technologies?
Education and training in circularity topics
Does the organization provide/reward formal education related to circularity?
Are specific problems addressed through internal or personalized training?
Can the company gain access to circular solutions databases?
Does the organization pursue partnerships with education providers?
Circular technologies, mechanisms and partnerships
Can customers access the possibilities of returning and collecting products?
Does the company use validated circularity standards and frameworks?
Does the organization benefit from expertise from professional bodiesand/or NGOs?
Can the company reprocess its internal materials for new/different products?
External support, know-how and funding
Does the organization use fiscal and operational incentives for circularity?
Has the organization accessed public funds for investment in technology?
Does the company contribute to the dissemination/sharing of best practices?
Does the organization pursue partnerships with RDI providers?
Adoption by customers and society
Are customers involved in solution development/management?
Does the organization cooperate with (local) authorities for circularity?
Is the company actively involved in associations/networks?
Does the company use digital tools to promote/implement circularity?
TOTAL

). Also, each evaluation is complemented by a spider diagram showing a graphical interpretation of the result and allowing for further benchmarking and improvement opportunities identification.

3.3. Survey Results

The questionnaire has been applied in 60 Romanian companies active in the wood industry, through email and phone interviews, in the period November 2022–January 2023. These companies were sampled to provide a generic picture of the entire sector in the country, with company size ranging from small and medium-sized to large firms or groups of firms, with a geographical distribution covering the most important wood exploitation areas. Also, the types of processing performed and the diversity of products are representative of the capabilities of the industry at the national level. We believe that by validating the questionnaire through this process, we can provide a general solution that can be considered acceptable for other industrial sectors as well.

Based on the answers provided, the authors have noted during a preliminary analysis that the legislative system in Romania, namely the application SUMAL-Integrated Information System for Tracking Wood Materials required by the Ministry of the Environment, Waters and Forests [36], contributes significantly to the performance of companies in the sector, together with the willingness of firms to adopt state of the art technological and management solutions. The diversity of situations encountered in the field is very high as can be noted on the integrative spider diagram of the audit results for the interviewed companies (Figure 2):

A quick visual analysis of the results in the figure shows there are a few companies that report very good results (seven firms scored over 95 points) and also fewer companies that report modest results (five firms scored below 55 points), while the great majority sit in the middle of the defined range (48 companies). This is both encouraging and troublesome, as much of the progress can be attributed to exogenous factors, while internal know-how is still developing at a rather slow rate. Another easily noticeable feature is the fact that a significant number of companies allocated median self-evaluation scores to the category dealing with product circularity, which points to the need for enhanced circular product-design competences.

Furthermore, going beyond this cursory assessment, the authors used descriptive and inferential statistical techniques to determine more complex relationships. All the examinations were carried out in Microsoft Excel.

The first step involved the analysis of the questionnaire results going by the seven main categories investigated (see Table 2 and Figure 2) and the totals obtained for each respondent firm. In

Table 3. Descriptive statistics applied to the aggregated questionnaire results.

Statistical Measure	Value
Mean	80.4667
Standard Error	2.0209
Median	82.5000
Mode	92.0000
Standard Deviation	15.6535
Sample Variance	245.0328
Kurtosis	0.6129
Skewness	−0.2118
Range	83.0000
Minimum	45.0000
Maximum	128.0000
Sum	4828.0000
Count	60.0000

below, we present the main statistical measures obtained for the aggregated responses (i.e., totals).

The descriptive statistics analysis performed on the 60 total scores reveals a moderate mean for all companies (a value of 80.4467 on the 28 to 140 scale). This result in itself is indicative of a large improvement opportunity at the level of the wood industry in Romania. When combined with the large variations in the sample, measured by the standard deviation of 15.6535, the disparities among the performance of companies towards circularity become even more apparent, in line with the graphical representation in Figure 2. Indeed, in many of the individual spider diagrams, it is noticed that the development of the components of the circular approach is not even or balanced, as would be expected for a mature paradigm. Moreover, positive results of one indicator are generally not correlated with positive results of the other indicators, thus indicating a state of growth and development in the industry with respect to circularity that is not coherent or standardized at the moment. However, it can be deduced that the close values of the mean and median (80.4667 and 82.5000) and the relative closeness of the mode value (at 92.000), as well as the small value of the standard error (2.0209), indicate a similar level of response from the companies towards the challenges of the studied transition, albeit differing in structure for each company.

The skewness is very low (-at 0.2118), thus pointing to a correct representation of the industry, which was one of the goals of the performed sampling. The kurtosis indicator is slightly positive (at 0.6129). These leptokurtic graph is in accordance with the current state of the industry that exhibits moderate initial progress towards circularity, underling the need for more shared know-how and strategic alignment in the industry and increased sources of support for companies. An obvious improvement potential can be seen for the range indicator that has a value of 83.0000 and varies from 45.000 to 128.0000, more than 2.8 times. Individual companies have a rather coherent approach in the studied matter, but their differences within the industry are significant and must be addressed.

Next, two types of ANOVA have been applied to learn more about the variance in the collected data, in order to perform interpretations regarding the circularity of the wood industry in Romania and how it can be enhanced in the future. In the case of the single factor ANOVA (

Table 4. Single factor ANOVA of the collected answers.

Source of Variation	SS	df	MS	F	p-Value	F Crit
Between Groups	2015.74	59	34.16509	2.146177	1.12 × 10−5	1.358639
Within Groups	5730.857	360	15.91905
Total	7746.598	419

, the 60 answer columns are analyzed and the F values and p values are generated. Since F is larger than F critical and P is considerably below the alpha level of 0.05, we consider, on the principle of rejection of the null hypothesis, that implementation of circular economy approaches is transforming the wood products companies in Romania based on their individual efforts.

When performing the two-factor ANOVA without replication (

Table 5. Two factor ANOVA without replication of the collected answers and cross-industry.

Source of Variation	SS	df	MS	F	p-Value	F Crit
Rows	185.4143	6	30.90238	1.972691	0.068808	2.12421
Columns	2015.74	59	34.16509	2.18097	7.56 × 10−6	1.35927
Error	5545.443	354	15.66509
Total	7746.598	419

, the column analysis confirms these results, whose values are even more representative. Insights into the cross-industry implementation of the seven categories can also be inferred. In this case, F is lower than F critical and the p value is above the alpha level, which means at the sectoral level, the null hypothesis must be accepted, at least partially. This translates, in turn, in our interpretation, to the fact that one or more of the axes used for audits is not yet exhibiting the transformations that are expected to reach the desired state of circularity in line with international trends.

Moreover, further investigation of the situation could reveal the means to intervene in the process in such a way that it is supported for faster and more effective implementation. Out of the studied seven directions, three are under company control (organizational change, circular processes, circular products) and two are under mixed control of the companies and the stakeholders (education and training, and technologies and partnerships), while another two are completely under external control (support and funding, and adoption by markets and society). Since at the company level the variation analysis shows good progress, we can deduce that the other components must be those that are not yet developing as expected.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

When cross-referencing the results presented above with the recently adopted National Strategy for Circular Economy [37], the points of view of the public sector, NGO sector and customer interests’ organizations, together with improved study programs at the higher education level (especially in engineering and business schools), could yield results within a reasonable time horizon on the directions of interest related to stakeholder involvement and support networks and mechanisms. These could, in turn, further influence the product, process and technology circularity adoption, leading to the creation of a “virtuous circle” in the future.

Based on the survey results and the discussions held with the companies that were involved, the following set of main recommendations can be formulated (one for each direction) in relation with existing published literature:

• Performance in terms of circularity must be tracked starting from the current baseline and establishing concrete objectives periodically, using dedicated software or platforms, which can automate tasks such as conceptual design or solution implementation [38].
• Product modularity is a mature approach in many industries, and it could be easily adopted for the wood products industry via the use of advanced PLM software and methods [39].
• In-process reuse of wood scraps for generating green biomass-based energy is technically feasible and financially incentivized by the existing governmental programs [40].
• A high level of training in the topics related to circularity can be achieved by partnering with secondary and tertiary educational institutions and employing a diversified approach [41].
• By becoming actively involved in industry associations and industrial clusters and networks, wood product companies could have the possibility to establish product collection centers at the end of the active lifecycle, to enable the quick and quasi-complete reuse of the materials [42].
• Many active financing and research support programs are available at the national and European levels and should be accessed with priority [43].
• Customers, either companies or end users, should be involved in circularity implementation schemes, to increase the level of product return and reuse as described by [44].

However, one must also take into account the fact that this combined raw materials and finished goods industry is highly regulated in many countries (including Romania) and it exhibits an elaborate mix of characteristics, which could complicate the analysis of the circularity efforts.

The proposed study contains three important contributions: a methodology to assess circularity performance of companies in the wood industry, a questionnaire developed based on the methodology and an associated graphical and mathematical model to perform organizational circularity audits, and a detailed statistical analysis of the results obtained by questioning 60 Romanian companies in this field. The novelty of the approach resides in the fact that it is tailored to the needs of the domain, which was not found previously in the literature, and that the essential statistical instruments used contribute to understanding the evolution of the sector and enable the formulation of recommendations. The authors consider that the methodology is of interest to academics when studying all facets and components of what the current trends towards a circular economy transition entail, while the audit tool can be easily implemented by companies and used by them or consultants working for them in order to determine the unused potential in bringing about better environmental and economic results. The numerical results can be relevant both for researchers as validation of the undertaken demarche, and for the wood industry in Romania and the European Union, which can use some of our recommendations in their own internal projects and lobby for improved policy and incentive support from the governments and society at large.

Among the limitations of the research presented, we mention the limited sample size that allows for a confidence level of only 90% with a margin of error of 10%, and the fact that more advanced statistical tools have not been used (and were not foreseen from the beginning) that could reveal more subtle insights. Also, among the limitations, consideration should be given to the assumptions that companies in the wood industry are more likely to be interested in becoming circular than other manufacturing branches and that innovation auditing can serve as a blueprint for circularity monitoring. These also give rise to possible routes for further research, including using different references, comparing the results with those obtained here and investigating other fields in the manufacturing industry and determining what good practices can be disseminated among them.

The efforts to achieve a full switch from the classical, linear, approach to a circular model are bound to be complex and take a long time. Materials industries, such as the wood sector, which produces both raw materials for many downstream industries and its own products, play a key role as they have the ability to influence considerable parts of the national or continental economies to which they belong. The findings in the current study point toward the need to rethink the business models used, to rely on new technologies only, as it makes sense for the overall benefits for customers, which, in this case are mostly other business, and make use on a large scale of improved digital and educational solutions. The lessons learned are transferable, with the proper adaptations and with continual reassessment to other domains, especially in the manufacturing area.