The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of 17 interconnected global objectives adopted in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, aiming to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity and peace for all by 2030. Building on decades of international initiatives—including the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the 2000 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and the 2012 Rio+20 Conference—the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent a universal, inclusive, and ambitious framework that addresses the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. Unlike their predecessors, the SDGs apply to all countries and emphasise the importance of leaving no one behind, promoting global partnerships, and striking a balance between immediate human needs and long-term planetary stewardship.

SDG 12 explicitly promotes the reduction of waste through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse, as stated in sub-target 12.5. Still, it does not specifically mention the reuse of reclaimed building materials by name. However, the broader language and supporting documents for SDG 12 encourage circular economy practices, including keeping materials in use and facilitating the reuse of products and materials across sectors such as construction. Industry case studies and certification schemes aligned with SDG 12 highlight practices like designing for disassembly and the reuse of concrete components, as well as the use of reclaimed materials in modular construction, indicating that the reuse of reclaimed building materials is considered an important means of achieving the goal—even if not singled out in the official SDG 12 text. Thus, while not directly referenced, the reuse of reclaimed building materials is implicitly supported as part of SDG 12's objectives for responsible consumption and production.

SDG 12.5 aims to substantially reduce waste generation by 2030 through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse. The official indicator for tracking progress on this target is the national recycling rate, measured in tons of material recycled (Indicator 12.5.1), which includes both domestically recycled materials and those exported for recycling. However, it does not directly quantify prevention or reuse activities. The overarching goal is to shift towards more sustainable consumption and production by minimising waste and maximising resource efficiency, in line with circular economy principles.

The language used in 12.5 intentionally conflates 'reuse and recycling' as a policy objective for every United Nations member state. However, Indicator 12.5.1 only requires member states to measure recycling.

It is advantageous for manufacturers that reusable items are destroyed by being recycled. This is the reason that the phrase 'reuse and recycling' permeates many policy documents of governments, regulators, organisations, companies and institutions. All 193 United Nations member states have signed up to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), unanimously adopting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the UN Summit in September 2015

While SDG Target 12.5 promotes waste reduction through prevention, reuse, and recycling, SDG Indicator 12.5.1 exclusively requires member states to measure recycling rates but not reuse rates, which creates a policy gap that risks undervaluing higher-impact reuse strategies.

=========

Briefing Note: SDG 12's measurement paradox, the conflation of 'reuse and recycling', and the need for quantifiable metrics

Date: 24 May 2025

Recipient: United Nations SDGs

Author: Thornton Kay, policy director, Salvo Ltd

Key insights for the UN SDG team

While Target 12.5 promotes waste reduction through prevention, reuse, and recycling, Indicator 12.5.1 exclusively measures recycling rates, creating a policy gap that risks undervaluing higher-impact reuse strategies.

This discrepancy stems from:

- Political prioritisation of business-friendly efficiency metrics over absolute consumption reduction

- Technical challenges in quantifying informal reuse systems

- Existing infrastructure biases favouring recyclable material tracking

The narrow focus on recycling may inadvertently incentivise nations to prioritise end-of-pipe solutions over systemic changes to consumption patterns, potentially undermining the environmental logic of the waste hierarchy.

The full analysis follows …

1. The Structural Design of SDG 12 and Target 12.5

1.1 Target Formulation and the Waste Hierarchy Integration

SDG 12, titled "Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns," encompasses 11 targets. Target 12.5 states: "By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse", which appears to acknowledge the waste hierarchy, giving priority to prevention and reduction, followed by reuse, recycling, and disposal. The inclusion of multiple waste management strategies in the target language suggests a recognition that achieving substantial waste reduction requires a comprehensive approach. Prevention and reduction address the root causes of waste generation, while reuse extends the product lifecycle without requiring additional processing. Recycling, though valuable, requires energy and resources to transform materials into new products, making it less environmentally efficient than reuse.

1.2 The Measurement Constraint: Indicator 12.5.1

Despite the comprehensive target language, indicator 12.5.1 measures only the "national recycling rate, tons of material recycled." The official definition specifies recycling rates as "the quantity of material recycled in the country, plus quantities exported for recycling, out of total waste generated in the country, minus material imported intended for recycling." It includes co-digestion, anaerobic digestion, and composting, but explicitly excludes controlled combustion and land application. The indicator methodology reveals a production-focused approach to sustainability measurement. Countries must track material flows through formal recycling systems, generating quantifiable data that can be compared across nations and over time. This approach aligns with existing waste management infrastructure and reporting systems, particularly in developed countries where formal recycling programs are well-established.

2. The Political Economy of Indicator Selection

2.1 Business-Friendly Efficiency Metrics

Research examining SDG indicator development reveals that the focus on recycling rates reflects broader political and economic considerations in international sustainability frameworks. Studies indicate that indicator choices were significantly influenced by business interests favouring production efficiency metrics over absolute consumption reduction measures. This orientation supports what scholars describe as a "clean production" approach that emphasises doing more with less rather than fundamentally questioning growth-oriented consumption patterns. The emphasis on recycling efficiency allows countries and businesses to demonstrate environmental progress while maintaining existing economic structures. Companies can report improved sustainability performance through enhanced recycling programs without necessarily reducing overall production volumes or addressing upstream consumption patterns. This approach proves politically palatable because it avoids challenging fundamental assumptions about economic growth and consumer behaviour.

2.2 Technical Feasibility and Data Availability

The selection of recycling as the primary measurement focus also reflects practical constraints in data collection and international reporting systems. Recycling operations typically involve formal waste management infrastructure, creating documented material flows that can be measured and verified. Many countries already collect recycling data through existing waste management systems, making this indicator technically feasible to implement across diverse national contexts. In contrast, measuring reuse presents significant methodological challenges. Reuse activities often occur through informal networks, second-hand markets, and individual behaviours that are difficult to track systematically. Products may be reused multiple times through various channels before eventual disposal, creating complex attribution problems for national-level measurement. The distributed and often informal nature of reuse activities makes them particularly challenging to quantify using standardised international reporting frameworks.

3. The Implications of Measurement Gaps

3.1 Missing the Hierarchy's Environmental Logic

The focus on recycling measurement while conflating it with reuse in the target language creates a significant analytical gap that undermines the environmental logic of the waste hierarchy. Reuse typically generates greater environmentalbenefits than recycling because it extends product lifecycles without requiring energy-intensive reprocessing. When products are reused, they avoid both the environmental costs of recycling and the resource consumption associated with manufacturing replacement items. This measurement approach may inadvertently incentivise countries to prioritise recycling infrastructure development over reuse systems. Nations seeking to improve their SDG 12 performance metrics have clear guidance on improving recycling rates, but lack corresponding measurement frameworks for enhancing reuse. The result could be policy environments that favour end-of-pipe recycling solutions over prevention and reuse strategies that would generate superior environmental outcomes.

3.2 Conflation Effects on Policy Development

The conflation of reuse and recycling in the target language while measuring only recycling creates conceptual confusion that may influence national policy development. Policymakers working to implement SDG 12 may interpret the target as calling for enhanced recycling systems while viewing reuse as a secondary consideration [5]. This interpretation could lead to resource allocation decisions that prioritise recycling infrastructure investment over reuse program development. Furthermore, the measurement gap means that countries implementing successful reuse programs receive no recognition in international SDG reporting systems. Nations investing in repair cafes, sharing economy platforms, or extended producer responsibility programs that emphasise reuse cannot demonstrate their contributions to SDG 12 through official indicators. This lack of recognition for measurement may discourage policy innovation in areas that could generate substantial environmental benefits.

4. Broader Systemic Challenges in Sustainability Measurement

4.1 The Efficiency Trap in Global Development Goals

The recycling measurement focus exemplifies a broader challenge in international sustainability frameworks that scholars describe as the "efficiency trap." This phenomenon occurs when sustainability indicators emphasise doing existing activities more efficiently rather than questioning whether those activities should be reduced or eliminated [4][5]. In the context of SDG 12, measuring recycling efficiency allows continued growth in material consumption and waste generation, provided that recycling rates improve proportionally. Research indicates that global material consumption continues to increase despite improvements in recycling efficiency, suggesting that efficiency gains alone are insufficient to achieve absolute sustainability objectives [5][9]. The focus on recycling rates may create false confidence aboutprogress toward sustainable consumption patterns while masking continued growth in overall material throughput.

4.2 Limitations of Production-Side Measurement

The emphasis on national recycling rates reflects a production-side approach to sustainability measurement that may not capture the full environmental impact of consumption patterns. Countries can improve their recycling indicators by enhancing domestic recycling infrastructure while simultaneously increasing the consumption of materials that require recycling. This approach allows nations to demonstrate improved sustainability performance while potentially increasing their overall environmental footprint through higher consumption volumes. Additionally, the focus on national boundaries in recycling measurement may not adequately address global material flows and trade relationships that influence sustainability outcomes. Countries may export recyclable materials to other nations, affecting their recycling rate calculations without necessarily improving global resource efficiency. This measurement approach could incentivise policy responses that optimise national indicators rather than contributing to global sustainability objectives.

5. Alternative Approaches and Future Directions

5.1 Comprehensive Waste Hierarchy Measurement

Addressing the conflation and measurement limitations in SDG 12 would require developing indicator frameworks that capture the full waste hierarchy while maintaining practical feasibility for international reporting. This could involve creating complementary indicators that measure prevention, reduction, and reuse activities alongside existing recycling metrics. Such an approach would provide more comprehensive information about national progress toward sustainable consumption patterns while acknowledging the superior environmental benefits of upstream interventions. Potential reuse measurement approaches could include tracking product lifecycle extension through warranty data, monitoring second-hand market activity, and surveying household and business reuse behaviours. While these approaches present methodological challenges, they could provide valuable insights into reuse system effectiveness that are currently invisible in SDG reporting frameworks.

5.2 Absolute Impact Measurement

Future indicator development could also address the efficiency trap by incorporating absolute impact measures alongside relative efficiency metrics. This approach would track total material consumption and waste generation volumes in addition to recycling rates, providing clearer information about whether countries are achieving absolute reductions in environmental impact. Such indicators would align better with planetary boundary concepts and the fundamental sustainability objective of reducing human environmental pressure.

Conclusion

The conflation of reuse and recycling in SDG 12's target language while measuring only recycling reflects the complex interplay of political, technical, and conceptual factors that shape international sustainability frameworks. This measurement approach prioritises quantifiable, business-friendly efficiency metrics over comprehensive sustainability assessment, potentially undermining the environmental logic of the waste hierarchy and creating policy incentives that favour recycling over superior reuse alternatives. Addressing these limitations requires acknowledging the fundamental tension between practical measurement constraints and comprehensive sustainability objectives, while developing innovative approaches that capture the full spectrum of waste reduction strategies essential for achieving genuine sustainable consumption patterns. The current framework's focus on recycling efficiency, while politically feasible and technically manageable, may inadvertently perpetuate consumption patterns that require more fundamental transformation to achieve SDG 12's broader sustainability ambitions.