Circularity claims are only as strong as the evidence behind them. By embedding verified Material Circularity Indicators (MCI) into Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), companies can build on the trusted EPD framework to turn circularity from a marketing message into robust, third-party verified data.
In this 30-minute webinar, Andrea Davies, National Sustainability Manager at Laminex, shared why Laminex integrated MCI into its EPDs and what it means for their wood fibre products. Jim Goddin, Head of Circular Economy at thinkstep-anz and co-author of the MCI methodology, explained how MCI works and how it can be embedded into EPDs.
Watch the replay below or scroll for a quick recap of the key takeaways from Andrea and Jim.
Andrea on the benefits of using MCI in EPDs
Andrea shared Laminex’s experience integrating the MCI into EPDs for seven wood fibre products, including MDF, particle board and laminates.
Key insights from Laminex’s experience included:
- Integrating MCI into EPDs is practical and cost-effective. The calculations use much of the same product and material data already collected for life cycle assessments and EPDs.
- Circularity information becomes clearer for customers and specifiers. MCI scores provide an easy way to communicate circular performance alongside verified environmental data.
- The approach supports eco-labels and certification schemes. Laminex uses MCI data to support submissions to programmes such as Good Environmental Choice Australia (GECA).
- Verified circularity data strengthens credibility. Embedding MCI in EPDs helps demonstrate evidence-based circularity claims and reduces the risk of greenwashing.
- The indicator highlights opportunities for improvement. MCI results help identify where products can become more circular and support ongoing product development.
- Circularity metrics support internal engagement. The data helps communicate the value of innovation and circular product design within the business and to the parent company.
Jim on MCI: what it is and how it’s used
Jim outlined how the MCI works, where it fits within existing sustainability frameworks, and why it is increasingly used to measure and communicate product circularity.
Key points from Jim’s presentation
- Circularity needs measurable data. Without consistent metrics, circularity claims are difficult to verify or compare across products.
- The MCI provides a product-level circularity score. It combines recycled content, product lifespan and end-of-life recovery into a single comparable indicator.
- EPDs are a natural platform for communicating circularity. Much of the data required to calculate MCI already exists in the life cycle assessment data used to produce Environmental Product Declarations.
- The methodology aligns with existing standards and frameworks. MCI can support reporting linked to ISO circular economy standards, life cycle assessment (LCA) and emerging tools such as digital product passports.
- Circularity metrics are increasingly used in certifications and procurement frameworks. Examples include Green Star Buildings v1.1, which recognises circular products, and the BCOR (BCA Certified Outcomes Rating) framework.
- MCI Pro helps companies apply the methodology in practice. The tool developed by thinkstep-anz simplifies the calculation of MCI scores and allows businesses to assess, compare and report product circularity using their bill of materials and existing product data. Find out more about our MCI tools here.
Q&A: Jim also answered some audience questions during the webinar, that we have summarised here.
Q: Is there a database where all the MCIs, including EPDs and self-published results, are stored for easy access?
A: No, there is currently no single database that brings together all MCIs, including both EPDs and self-published results.
Self-published MCIs are typically spread across different organisations’ websites, which makes them harder to find and compare.
For EPDs, access is more straightforward. For example, EPD Australasia allows users to search for EPDs that include MCI through tagging, making it easier to identify verified results. Overall, while some structured access exists for EPDs, MCI data is still fragmented, and greater centralisation and visibility would improve accessibility and comparability.
Q: Is there a benchmark for a “good” MCI?
A: This is a question that comes up a lot. How good is good?
MCI is best understood from two perspectives: internal improvement and external comparison.
From an internal perspective, MCI helps identify where circularity can be improved. It highlights key levers such as material sourcing, end-of-life pathways and product durability. This allows organisations to quickly pinpoint barriers and opportunities, and take targeted action to improve performance.
From an external perspective, MCI supports comparison with other products in the market. It can influence procurement decisions, but it is only one of several factors considered alongside metrics such as embodied carbon and cost.
Rather than focusing on achieving a specific score, the value of MCI lies in understanding current performance and demonstrating a clear pathway for improvement. Publishing an MCI shows both where a product stands today and how its circularity is expected to
Q: Is MCI attached to an EPD?
A: MCI is not inherently attached to an EPD, but it can be included within one. Currently, MCI is typically reported as additional information in an EPD, but it can also be published through other certification schemes or as a standalone report.
To ensure results are comparable, MCI should be calculated in line with product category rules and standards such as ISO 59020, using consistent system boundaries.
Using an EPD framework helps achieve this consistency, which is why it is a common and effective way to report MCI.
Q: Would you recommend contractors who want to improve circularity in their building projects to be using MCI's or CTI's?
A: The MCI and CTI are both aligned with ISO 59020 but they are different in terms of maturity and adoption.
The CTI is available in a single web-based tool (CTI-tool) which means businesses have to transfer data into that tool, pay for additional licences, and develop familiarity with the tool itself. The CTI tool has other components besides circularity, however, its LCA assessment is not suitable for making comparisons or public statements. This is acknowledged on page 84 of CTI V4.0, which states: "We would like to emphasize that the output is not a carbon footprint of life-cycle assessment (LCA). We strongly recommend that companies use granular approaches such as LCA or others for final decision making and external communication".
The MCI, on the other hand, has, since the beginning, aligned itself with LCA tools as a complementary metric. It is available in all of the major LCA platforms and can be calculated at the same time, using the same data. This avoids duplication of effort and keeps the data and assumptions aligned as well as ensuring granular results that can be safely verified and published.
The availability of free MCI calculators such as the tool on our website, or the MCI Pro tool that we are currently releasing aim to widen access to this important metric, reduce the cost of access and provide a simple route to verification.
The result of these differences is that the CTI has a number of isolated case studies, whereas the MCI has been used to publish verified results as part of formal declarations for over ten years. The MCI is more convenient to access and cheaper to use. The MCI Pro tool is also available in Japanese.
So my recommendation is to use the MCI.