Information Barriers to Circularity for Electronic Products and the Potential of Digital Product Passports

Abstract

Digitalisation is seen as an enabler of the circular economy that supports the flow of information important for the decision-making of consumers and recyclers. However, barriers prevail that hinder the effective implementation of circular economy practices. This study analyses prevailing circular economy barriers and identifies information barriers along the product life cycle for the electronics sector. The digital product passport (DPP) is used as a concept to discuss the potentials and limitations for overcoming identified information barriers. A literature analysis was performed, extracting 77 information barriers from 17 selected articles. Results reveal gaps in missing information, including material composition and dismantling instructions for recyclers, product condition for second-hand consumers, certifications and know-how for designers, and deficiencies in internal and external communication. Several barriers of a technical, economic, or social nature are found that are indirectly rooted in missing information or knowledge. As a novelty, this study provides a comprehensive overview of information barriers along the product life cycle for the circular economy, considering the scope of the DPP. Practical implications are derived for further research, e.g., to evaluate which information should or has to be included in the DPP considering the data gathering effort, environmental benefits, and corporate interests.

1. Introduction

Global resource extraction and use reached 100 billion tonnes in 2019, contributing to environmental degradation, climate change, and systemic pressures on socio-economic systems [1,2]. A significant portion of this impact is driven by the production and consumption of increasingly complex products, which challenge sustainable practices across their life cycles—from sourcing and design to reuse and recycling [3,4]. The circular economy (CE) aims to decouple economic growth from resource consumption by promoting strategies such as reuse, repair, and recycling [5,6]. However, the operationalisation of CE faces persistent barriers, many of which stem from fragmented or missing information among stakeholders [7,8].

While previous research has identified circular economy barriers across specific sectors or lifecycle stages, a comprehensive overview is lacking—particularly one that systematically maps information barriers to stakeholders, product value stages, and CE goals. A structured framework or ontology is lacking that maps the interactions between stakeholders and circular strategies and identifies the specific information needed to support their implementation. This gap limits the ability to identify leverage points for policy, design, or technological intervention.

This study addresses this gap by developing a structured overview of CE-related information barriers along the product life cycle in the electronics sector. The analysis links stakeholders and value stages to specific CE goals and identifies both direct and indirect information barriers that hinder their implementation. Based on this framework, the study evaluates the potential of Digital Product Passports (DPPs) as a product information system defined in the European Commission’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation [9]—to overcome these barriers by improving transparency, traceability, and data accessibility across the value chain [10,11].

Objectives

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of information barriers towards product circularity and a discussion on the potential of the DPP to provide information along the product life cycle. The following research questions are addressed:

• RQ1: Which information barriers towards the circular economy prevail?
• RQ2: How can the DPP contribute to reducing identified information barriers?

In response to the conclusion of Berger et al. [12], the focus of this study is set specifically on one product group, namely electronic products. To note, the specific technical design (also referred to as “architecture”) and information included in the DPP are not yet defined. Therefore, the potential of the DPP to close information gaps is discussed qualitatively in the Discussion section. The technical architecture of the DPP is not analysed in this study, e.g., whether a QR-code or NFC (near field communication) chip is favourable and for which product groups. Furthermore, the environmental impacts of the DPP as a digital technology itself are not the subject of this study, but the first implications can be found in Wagner et al. [13].

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. The Circular Economy and Its Goals

The circular economy as a concept is based on distinct ideas formulated in various disciplines and areas. It is increasingly adopted as a systemic alternative to the linear “take–make–dispose” model, aiming to decouple economic activity from resource consumption and environmental degradation [5]. The sustainable development goals (SDGs) are mostly used to derive CE goals, discussed in scientific research [14,15,16,17] and political agenda and semi-scientific disciplines [5,18,19,20,21,22]. These goals are linked to substantial environmental or societal improvements and can be used to define (information) requirements [23]. Named sources derive CE goals systematically, starting from framing the concept of the circular economy from which a vision is derived and broken down into (abstract and specific) objectives or goals. This study uses the goals identified in [21], which focus on material, product, and waste levels across all product life cycle stages, in alignment with the scope of the DPP (see

Table 1. Circular Economy goals (right) clustered towards product life cycle stages (left).

Product Life Cycle Stage	Circular Economy Goal	References with Barriers Per CE Goal
Resource/Material Production	Ensure ecological and social standards	[24,25]
Design and Production	Sustainable design	[7,26]
	Longevity	[27]
	Recovery	[27]
	Material and resource efficiency	[28]
	Use recyclates	[13,29,30]
Distribution and Retail	Ensure ecological standards	[25,31]
	Ensure social standards	[25]
Use and Reuse	Informed purchase	[31]
	Repair	[32,33,34]
	Reuse	[34,35,36,37]
	Sufficiency	[31]
End-of-life	Recycling	[34,38]

).

Another popular approach to applying CE goals is “R-strategies”. Implementing CE practices requires stakeholders across the value chain, including producers, users, and recyclers, to adopt “R-strategies” such as refusing, reducing, repairing, remanufacturing, and recycling resources [6]. The R strategies are also used to derive goals for the digital product passport [39].

2.2. Information Barriers and the Concept of “Information” in the Circular Economy

In the context of the CE, information refers to processed, actionable data that stakeholders can use to make decisions supporting sustainable production and consumption. Information barriers arise when critical information is unavailable or when issues in transmission, interpretation, or usability hinder stakeholders from achieving CE objectives [8,40].

Some political agendas and legal texts mention information barriers to the circular economy, such as the BMUV’s Environmental Digital Agenda, the European Green Deal [41], and the New Action Plan for the Circular Economy [20]. Current scientific studies often focus on legal, technical, social, and economic barriers [7,42] but only a few information barriers. Furthermore, they mostly address specifically a single sector or value chain stage: ref. [43] analyse gaps in information on product design and production stages impeding sustainable practices. Similarly, in the construction sector, the use of Building Information Modelling can help overcome information management barriers, particularly during the design and construction stages [44]. The mining industry faces organisational and operational barriers tied to information management, affecting resource use and recycling [45]. Ref. [46] analyses small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which encounter significant information and skill barriers, impacting their ability to adopt CE practices effectively, which was also identified for the food supply chain [47]. From a technological perspective on ICT (information and communication technology), some information barriers are discussed that impede the adoption of ICT solutions for the circular economy [48]. Ref. [8] identifies single information barriers in supply chains regarding knowledge and skill issues as well as consumer perception.

2.3. Theoretical Foundations of Information Barriers and Digital Product Passports

The conceptual framework of this study integrates information asymmetry theory by Akerlof [49] and transaction cost theory by Williamson [50], contextualising information gaps as critical impediments within value chains. Information asymmetry arises when stakeholders lack equitable access to critical product information, thus increasing transaction costs and reducing trust, leading to suboptimal resource allocation and market failures. Product information systems, such as DPPs, function as strategic digital infrastructures [51] designed to mitigate these asymmetries by enhancing transparency, traceability, and accessibility of critical product lifecycle information. By systematically reducing uncertainty and transaction costs, DPPs are assumed to enable more efficient resource use, improve circularity practices, and enhance collaboration across diverse stakeholder groups.

2.4. Scope of DPPs and Current Research

The DPP is a digital data exchange tool that is defined and driven by the European Commission through the Ecodesign Regulation [9]. Here, the DPP scope is defined towards the following:

• Sector and product scope: The DPP is product-centric, including energy-related products (electronics), textiles, furniture, tyres, detergents, and other.
• Product life cycle and stakeholders (see Section 2.5): The stakeholder scope can be derived from the scope of information requirements—information on substances of concern is required, which includes the material producer as a potential stakeholder. According to ESPR Article 7 (Information requirements), the DPP will carry information, i.a., consumer and treatment facilities (recycler). In this manner, the stakeholder scope spans from material producers to treatment facilities.
• Circular economy (see Section 2.1): The DPP is a technology that should support and enable the circular economy by improving product circularity.
• Technical scope (see Section 2.6): Storage of digital information, identifiers and access rights, interoperability, standardised information, privacy rules and authorship, data authentication, reliability, and integrity.

The ESPR represents a horizontal legislative framework, implying that it spans many product categories. Nonetheless, the optimal strategies to enhance sustainability remain specific to each product category. For each group, delegated acts will specify, i.a., the most relevant information, stakeholders, and access rights related to the primary sustainability impacts that could be realised.

The recent literature highlights specific aspects of DPPs within the CE. For example, Van Capelleveen et al. [11] provide a conceptual definition of DPPs as comprehensive digital records that facilitate data traceability and enable lifecycle decision-making. Luscuere [52] and Munaro and Tavares [53] further discuss DPPs as “material passports”, which can enhance material recovery by standardising product information requirements. However, these authors highlight that the effectiveness of DPPs relies heavily on sector-specific data and the establishment of standardised information formats, which remain challenging due to variability across industries [10,54].

Although detailed specifications for the DPPs for each product group are pending, the recent scientific literature is already exploring the challenges and potentials regarding the technical design and the type of information that DPPs might carry. From a scientific perspective, technical requirements and potential benefits of DPPs are discussed, and challenges are identified [55,56]. Further discussions consider the adoption of a DPP into business practices [57] and adoption barriers with a focus on the battery sector [12]. The standardisation of product data for DPPs in the manufacturing industry is addressed by [54].

2.5. Product Life Cycle Stages

The DPP aims to overcome information asymmetries between stakeholders along the life cycle of products. Thus, the authors argue that a horizontal analysis along the life cycle is necessary to identify overlapping information demands and interdependencies. This study utilises a life cycle approach to cluster the identified barriers and stakeholders, dividing the analysis into five key stages: resource/material production, design and production, distribution and retail, use and reuse, and end-of-life, each of them corresponding to unique barriers and specific stakeholder groups (see Table 1).

2.6. Technical Scope

Besides the provision of information, the DPP will provide technical features and infrastructure (architecture). According to recent developments, the technical architecture will be determined towards data carries and unique identifiers, access rights management, data storage, interoperability, data security and privacy, data authentication, reliability, integrity, and data processing [58]. The technical features are used to discuss the potential of the DPP to close certain barriers. It is assumed that the features will lead to improvement in specific categories, taken from the meta-data specifications of the FAIR principles https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/ (accessed on 3 June 2025). (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability), which aim to allow or optimise the use of data (see Section 5).

3. Method

This study identifies information barriers from the literature and discusses the potential of the DPP to address them. First, a literature review of CE barriers is performed. Second, the barriers are screened and labelled as information barriers. Finally, results are taken into discussion, how the DPP can contribute to reducing these information barriers.

3.1. Literature Review of Barriers to the Circular Economy

To investigate the barriers to achieving CE goals, a comprehensive literature review was conducted using databases Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The CE goals listed in Table 1 served as the basis for search strings used during the desk research phase. The review includes literature published from 2009 to 2023. Although newer publications on DPPs include goals, they do not specifically address barriers or analyse the link between the sustainable impact and these barriers. These studies are introduced in Section 2.1 and discussed in Section 6.

Keyword Search: Each CE goal listed in Table 1 was searched in combination with the terms “barrier” or “gap”. For instance, barriers on the goal “longevity” have been searched by the string “barrier longevity” as well as “gap longevity”. The search process, as illustrated in Figure 1, resulted in a collection of 646 articles that either matched the search strings or were identified through other papers (snowballing). Thematically irrelevant sources, e.g., from medical research, have been excluded. A total of 121 articles have been selected for further review towards the relevance criteria.

Relevance criteria and excluded literature: In general, an article was identified as relevant if it corresponds to the study scope. To reduce complexity and length, electronic products are generally focused. However, within the analysis process, it was found that generic barriers without a sector focus yield useful barriers and, thus, have been included. Relevance is given to barriers relating to product, material, or waste levels in primary and secondary resource production. A relation to a distinct product life cycle stage has to be given.

Sample size and clustering: Out of the 121 articles, 33 were identified as relevant and included for further screening of information barriers, and 88 were excluded.

3.2. Identification of Information Barriers

To structure the review, each selected article was (1) coded and (2) categorised towards information barriers with a final (3) thematic analysis towards CE lifecycle stages. The coding approach followed a combined inductive–deductive strategy to ensure that identified barriers reflected both emergent themes from the information and established CE objectives. The coding process included three key steps:

(1)

Initial Coding: During this phase, we conducted open coding of the 33 articles, noting references to any CE-related barriers within the study scope (relation to product, stakeholder, or lifecycle).

(2)

Categorisation: Within the analysis and categorisation, it was found that two groups of information barriers can be differentiated: direct and indirect information barriers. Direct barriers involve specific data gaps, such as missing material composition information or recycling instructions, which directly impact CE practices. Indirect barriers covered broader structural challenges, like consumer awareness and organisational readiness, which indirectly affect CE practices. For the discussion on potential coping strategies (see Section 5.1), it is useful to differentiate these two groups. The indication of direct (d) or indirect (i) can be found in the right column of each table in the Results section. Furthermore, the barriers—which are usually sentences—are coded with a short tag for comprehensive analysis and discussion.

(3)

Thematic Analysis: Each barrier was then mapped to one of the five lifecycle stages to examine stakeholder-specific information needs and the applicability of DPPs in addressing these needs.

After applying the three-step approach, a further 16 articles were excluded as no CE barriers with relation to information were identified.

4. Results: Direct and Indirect Information Barriers

Applying the approach, barriers have been clustered and information barriers identified, resulting in 38 direct and 39 indirect information barriers.

4.1. Resource and Material Production

The main goal in the production of materials related to information is to ensure social and ecological standards (see

Table 2. Direct (d) and indirect (i) information barriers for specific goals in resource and material production stage.

Life Cycle Stage	Goals	Tag	Barrier	Type
Resource/material production	Ensure ecological and social standards	Certification	Lack of resources for auditing all suppliers	i
			Too many audits—cheating to simplify	i
		Costs	Lack of money for audits	i
		Costs (information asymmetry)	Discrepancy in expectations between producer and customer	i
		Know-how	Lack of training and information	i
			Top management lacks understanding	i
		Low demand	Lack of customer demand for certification	i
		Standardisation required	Low level of environmental and social standards	i
			The market is not ready for strict purchasing criteria	i
		Supplier identification	Lack of information about supplier	d
			Problematic to obtain lists of suppliers and to check their performance	d
		Traceability, certification	Impossible to ensure that all suppliers follow up the social policy	i
		Validation	Problems to verify information presented by suppliers because of the risk of false figures and double booking	i

). The found literature addresses rather indirect informational barriers coming from a sustainable sourcing or purchasing perspective. As a direct barrier, information to identify the suppliers due to a general lack of supply chain traceability is missing [25].

Costs are an important driver that might arise from additional effort to collecting and processing information on customer expectations on socially responsible production (SRP) and translating these into SRP strategies ([25] as cited in [59]).

Certification and quality standards are not available or accessible, which as a barrier is multiplied by the vast amount of material producers or suppliers. This results in potentially false claims or statements of suppliers, which makes the validation of provided information necessary.

Audit costs and a lack of demand [24] for socially sound production were identified as indirect information barriers as they could be tackled by providing information on sustainability, such as social and environmental labels, to the consumer. However, the existing sustainability labels are heterogenic and thus not comparable as such, which increases the necessary effort for purchasing. As a result, standardisation is demanded, in particular for procurement [25].

Other goals and barriers of material producers without informational character exist but are not focused on in this study, like the avoidance of emissions, which is hindered by high costs for new efficient machines or green energy.

4.2. Design and Production

Most information gaps were found within the design and production stage (

Table 3. Direct (d) and indirect (i) information barriers for specific goals in design and production stage.

Life Cycle Stage	Goals	Tag	Barrier	Type
Design and Production	Longevity	Information asymmetry	Long-term in-service failure data	d
		Sustainability benefits	Unclear advantage and sustainability benefits	i
	Material and resource efficiency	Awareness	Lack of environmental education in general	i
			Limited environmental awareness of the directors	i
			Low perceived role in activities of reuse and reduce	i
		Certification	Lack of relevant/suitable tools for environmental initiatives	d
		Communication	Lack of communication	d
		Consumer perception	Customer perception that sustainability is a trade-off for price/performance	i
			Customer prefer new products	i
			Reuse of materials considered waste lacks normative support	i
		Know-how	Lack of information and knowledge sharing	d
			Lack of life cycle thinking and life cycle costing	i
		Know-how, communication	Lack of ecodesign and communication with product development	d
		Label, proper visualisation for end-consumer	Lack of accreditation or certification towards increasing reuse activities	i
			Lack of awareness, understanding, knowledge, and experience with environmental issues	i
		Low demand	Low public pressure, lack of demand from shareholders, investors, and community	i
		Missing demand	Lack of market preference and customer demands	i
		Missing indicator for consumers	Lack of indicators for normative support for CE outside recycling	d
	Recovery	Information asymmetry	Unclear role in recovery process	i
	Sustainable design	Awareness	Identification and management of environmental impacts	i
			Missing responsibility from companies	i
		Information asymmetry	Information asymmetry on sustainable design	d
		Know-how	Bounded rationality (Customer prejudices)	i
		Missing demand	Lacking consumer interest and awareness	i
		Standardisation required	Limited standardisation	i
		Sustainability benefits	Lack of data, e.g., on impacts	d
	Use recyclates	Environmental impact	Finding environmental impact info	d
		Know-how	Too much specialist knowledge on how to use recyclates required	i
		Material composition	Unknown mixture of different materials	d
			Unknown material mixture	d

). Major challenges arise for material and resource-efficient product design. Authors [26,60] found a lack of internal communication and information exchange within product development but also external information asymmetry with recycling and recovery. Even if information is provided, individual ecodesign know-how and tools for environmental initiatives are missing.

Ref. [27] found that product design for sustainability and longevity is held back by unclear sustainability benefits and impacts [7] as well as data, e.g., on long-term repair statistics to determine frequent failure parts. Even if designed for longevity, labels and proper visualisation are missing to communicate the design benefits to consumers. This information gap leads to insecurities among consumers and prevailing prejudices about green products, appearing as an indirect information barrier [28]. The use of recycled or renewable materials in new products requires specialist know-how as well as information on the environmental performance [29] and the mixture of recyclates to determine the material characteristics [61].

Indirect information barriers prevail as missing awareness within companies (management) [26,60], ecodesign know-how (designers) [60], as well as consumer perception and demand [28], which might be tackled if particular information is provided.

4.3. Distribution and Retail

Distribution and retail stakeholders mainly aim to ensure ecological and socially responsible production, which is already allocated as a goal in the material production stage (

Table 4. Direct (d) information barriers for specific goals in distribution and retail stage.

Life Cycle Stage	Goals	Barrier Category	Barrier	Type
Distribution and Retail	Ensure ecological and social standards	Availability of tools	Lack of practical tools and updated information	d
	Ensure ecological standards	Certification	Lack of database access to certification and quality standards	d
		Supplier identification	Traceability of supply chain	d
	Ensure social standards	Corporation	Lack of cooperation between different purchasing units	d
		Know-how	Information availability and time-consuming internal information collection	d
		Know-how, lack of social and environmental impacts	Lack of knowledge and time for identifying specific social aspects and incorporating them into purchasing criteria and training kits tailored for the development of company needs	d

). In particular, procurement is burdened by the lack of standardised information (e.g., certificates), tools, or even the missing access to already available certificates, which in total requires a high effort and know-how for purchasing sustainably produced products [31]. Limited information exchange and cooperation between purchasing units were found as an internal barrier [25].

4.4. Use and Reuse

Stakeholders in the use and reuse stage are mainly confronted with information barriers within purchase, to refuse, repair, and reuse or buy second-hand products (

Table 5. Direct (d) and indirect (i) information barriers for specific goals in use and reuse stage.

Life Cycle Stage	Goals	Barrier Category	Barrier	Type
Use and Reuse	Informed purchase	Certification	Few information obligations of online retailers	d
			Heterogeneous label	d
		Standardisation required	Non-comparable information and scales (low information quality)	d
	Repair	Dismantling instructions	Need of information on dismantling of key components	d
		Know-how	Lack of necessary skills	i
		Lack of information	Useful repair information missing	d
		Missing demand	Lack of repair demand	i
		Missing indicator for consumers	Consumer perception (lack of understanding of repairability at time of purchase)	i
		Repair feedback to designer	Product design (cannot be disassembled)	i
			Product design (low-quality, economically unfeasible)	i
		Repair information	Lack of consumer awareness of repair options and warranty	d
	Reuse	Counterfeit	Counterfeit of quality brands	i
		Data deletion	Uncertainty about secure data deletion	d
		Data erasure certificate	Data confidentiality/clearance	i
		Product condition	Contamination of hygiene products	i
			Perceived low hygiene	i
			Unknown product health	d
			Unknown residual lifetime	d
		Product history	Unknown product history	d
	Sufficiency	Target application area	Unknown application area	d

).

Refuse of consumption (sufficiency) as the first target of the R strategies [62] requires suitable information on the product application area to evaluate the necessity for the consumer. This overlaps with the goal of making an informed purchase. Products are lacking sustainability information, e.g., labels and certificates, due to few information obligations (of retailer). If information is available, consumers are confronted with heterogenic and complex information, making product information and ratings or scales not comparable [31].

In the event of product failure, consumers often lack awareness and information regarding repair options and warranty provisions. Self or independent repairers experience producer resistance to provide useful repair information [32]. Indirectly a lack of useful repair information potentially provokes a lack of repair know-how and skills linked to a missing repair demand. Product design is found to be not repair-friendly by means of non-reversible disassembly or high costs (low economic viability), which might be improved if designers are provided feedback from the repairer, e.g., on frequent failure parts or non-successful reassembly [33].

Reuse and second-hand among consumers is a CE barrier due to missing securities of personal data clearance, e.g., by certification [34,35]. Consumers are challenged by unknown product conditions by means of product health, history, residual lifetime, or hygiene [36]. Especially for second-hand products, customers mention the difficulty of determining counterfeit quality brands.

4.5. End-of-Life

In the end-of-life phase of products, it is aimed to recycle components and materials, including sorting out hazardous substances and production of high-quality recyclates (

Table 6. Direct (d) information barriers for specific goals in the end-of-life stage.

Life Cycle Stage	Goals	Barrier Category	Barrier	Type
EoL	Recycling	Component map	Identifiability of batteries	d
		Dismantling instructions	Need of information on dismantling of key components	d
		Material composition	Declaration of flame-retardant content	d
			Marking of plastic components	d
			Need of information on critical raw materials	d
			Need of information on the type of plastic using standardised symbols	d
			Need of information on the use of flame retardants in plastics	d
		Recycling statistics	More accurate information on feedstock generation and collection	d

). To note, EU waste regulation (WEEE Directive, Battery Regulation, etc.) defines similar goals and state information requirements that follow these goals. Despite the existing legal information requirements, it was found that the recycler/sorter mentions the need for information on contained batteries, critical raw materials, and flame retardants in plastic. The type of plastic should be indicated using standardised symbols and markings of plastics. Dismantling instructions of key components are specified in the regulation but are still mentioned as an information barrier [34]. Recycling statistics are useful with more accurate information on feedstock generation and collection [38].

5. Discussion

The identified direct and indirect information barriers can be interpreted through the information asymmetry and transaction cost theory. Direct barriers, such as missing data on product composition or certification, represent classic instances of information asymmetry, where one stakeholder (e.g., the recycler or consumer) lacks critical knowledge held by another (e.g., the producer or supplier). This asymmetry not only increases uncertainty and perceived risk but also transaction costs, which reduce circular practices, as they make activities like reuse, repair, or recycling less attractive or economically viable. Similarly, missing product history, unknown residual lifetime, and the absence of disassembly instructions create uncertainties and conditions of risk for recyclers, repairers, and second-hand buyers. Indirect barriers such as limited consumer awareness of repair options, low demand for certified reused products, or lack of ecodesign feedback loops within organisations can be understood as forms of increased transaction costs. These arise when stakeholders cannot access reliable or interpretable information needed to coordinate actions or assess value. To which extent the DPP can offer opportunities to address the causes of these barriers is discussed in the following sections.

5.1. Opportunities of Digital Product Passports to Overcome Information Barriers

Direct information barriers identified in this study can be tackled by the DPP, assuming it will provide the missing information.

Table 7. Direct information barriers (left column) that might be overcome by providing missing DPP information (middle column) and its potential impact (right column).

Stage	Identified Direct Information Barrier	DPP Information for Overcoming Barriers	Potential Impact
Resource production	Lack of information about supplier	Supplier identification and verification data	Improved traceability and responsible sourcing
	Problematic to obtain supplier lists and assess performance	Centralised and standardised supplier data	More efficient and transparent procurement processes
	Traceability of supply chain	End-to-end supply chain tracking and product genealogy	Enhanced sourcing transparency and accountability
Design and Production	Long-term in-service failure data	Usage statistics and failure records	Enhanced product design for durability and reparability
	Lack of relevant/suitable tools for environmental initiatives	Environmental performance data and evaluation tools	Informed decision-making and integration of ecodesign strategies
	Lack of communication	Structured DPP fields enabling stakeholder communication	Strengthened collaboration across the value chain
	Lack of information and knowledge sharing	Access to shared design, usage, and end-of-life data	Increased resource efficiency and innovation
	Lack of ecodesign and communication with product development	Feedback loops via DPP from recyclers and users	Design improvements based on real-world recovery and usage data
	Lack of indicators for CE beyond recycling	CE performance indicators (e.g., reuse rate, repairability score)	Better evaluation and promotion of broader circular strategies
	Information asymmetry on sustainable design	Design transparency and material sustainability data	Balanced stakeholder knowledge for sustainable innovation
	Lack of data on environmental impacts	Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data and environmental footprint	Better environmental performance monitoring
	Finding environmental impact info	Embedded LCA summaries and sustainability metrics	Easier environmental assessment and comparison
Distribution and Retail	Lack of access to certification and quality standards	Centralised repository of certifications and compliance info	Improved purchasing and reuse decisions
	Lack of cooperation between purchasing units	DPP-enabled shared access to procurement-relevant information	Streamlined procurement and harmonised sustainability criteria
	Information availability and time-consuming internal collection	Central digital access to verified product and component data	Reduced information costs and improved decision speed
Use and Reuse	Lack of practical tools and updated information	Updated repair manuals and handling instructions	Improved maintenance, repair, and end-of-life treatment
	Few information obligations of online retailers	Legal integration of mandatory product info into DPP	Informed consumer choices and compliance assurance
	Heterogeneous labels	Standardised labels and harmonised rating systems	Better comparability of sustainability information
	Non-comparable info and low information quality	Uniform product declarations and metrics	Consistent evaluation across similar products
	Useful repair information missing	Maintenance and repair guidance, including tools and parts	Extended product life and support for independent repair
	Lack of consumer awareness of repair options and warranty	Clear DPP sections on warranty terms and repair opportunities	Higher repair uptake and reduced early disposal
	Uncertainty about secure data deletion	Certified data erasure protocols and tools	Increased reuse and resale of data-sensitive products
	Unknown product health	Usage history, diagnostics, and maintenance records	Enhanced confidence in second-hand markets
	Unknown residual lifetime	Estimated remaining life based on usage profiles	Informed decisions on reuse vs. recycling
	Unknown product history	Ownership and service history documentation	Increased trust in reused products
	Unknown application area	Defined intended use and application context	Better consumer understanding and avoidance of misapplication
End-of-life	Unknown mixture of different materials	Detailed material breakdowns	Improved recyclability and material recovery
	Unknown material mixture	Standardised material composition information	Reduced contamination and increased recycling quality
	Need for dismantling information	Step-by-step disassembly instructions for key components	Increased reparability and improved recycling practices
	Identifiability of batteries	Battery presence, type, and location information	Safe removal and specialised recycling handling
	Flame-retardant and hazardous substance declaration	Substance declaration and marking (e.g., plastics, FRs, CRMs)	Improved sorting and hazardous material handling
	Plastic marking and critical raw material information	Standardised plastic type markings and CRM indicators	Efficient material separation and prioritisation in recycling
	Feedstock collection and recycling statistics	Data on volumes collected, sorted, and recovered	Performance monitoring and system optimisation

illustrates the direct information barriers (left column) and specifies the necessary information to resolve them (middle column), aligning potential impacts with corresponding stages of the product life cycle and CE goals (right column).

Similarly,

Table 8. Indirect information barriers (left column) that might be overcome by the feature or scope of the DPP (middle column) and its potential impact (right column).

Indirect Information Barrier	Features or Scope of the DPP	Potential Impact (From FAIR Principles)
Lack of information Unknown product sustainability	Identifiers and access rights	Improves the findability and accessibility
	Storage of digital information	Enables the data availability and transparency
Unsuitable information Complexity of information	Interoperability; standardised information (and technical infrastructure)	Improve interoperability, allow information exchange and comparison
Information asymmetry	Privacy rules and authorship	Enables the reusability
Uncertainty and risk of information	Data authentication, reliability, integrity	Improves the correctness

presents a subset of indirect barriers that might be positively affected by the DPP, considering its features or technical scope. To note, only a subset is shown to illustrate a potential impact, as this study does not analyse the impact and correlation to information.

The delegated acts under the ESPR will require making information digitally available (by the data provider) and transparent to certain stakeholders, reducing the barrier of a lack of information and unknown product sustainability. By defining unique identifiers and determining access rights, potentially more information will become accessible for different actors (data user). The DPP enhances interoperability by adopting standardised data formats, allowing information exchange and comparison across various platforms and sectors. Furthermore, relevant stakeholders can potentially retrieve up-to-date and comparable information about a product. This overcomes the barrier of unsuitable or complex information.

Additionally, the technical architecture of the DPP will enable the preservation of information as business assets by determining privacy rules and authorship for information, thus enabling information sharing. The DPP can assure the authenticity of information and its integrity throughout the value chain. However, it cannot assure that the information itself (the content) is correct. Thus, the information barrier “uncertainty and risk” can only be partially tackled. To assure information correctness, this barrier might be reduced by (third-party) validated information, which is currently not in the scope of the DPP or legislation.

Some identified information barriers in this study indicate potential interdependencies across distinct lifecycle stages. For instance, insufficient supplier data in the resource and material production phase can directly impair the ability of product designers to select sustainably sourced materials. As a further consequence, products entering the recycling stage may contain materials that are difficult or uneconomical to separate and recover due to inadequate initial design choices. Similarly, the incorporation of recycled content necessitates verified sources and validated processes. Another example would be the absence of detailed information on product disassembly procedures during the design phase complicates repair and reuse activities downstream. Finally, these interdependencies require further investigation, while a systemic solution such as the DPP can enable information exchange across the entire lifecycle and allow stakeholders at each stage to anticipate and address potential upstream and downstream impacts.

5.2. Limitations and Challenges

While DPPs offer a pathway to address direct information barriers, indirect barriers present a more complex challenge. Many of these barriers are structural and embedded in broader organisational and market contexts, which DPPs alone cannot resolve.

Indirect barriers such as consumer preferences for new products over reused items, limited interest in repair, and differences in digital literacy and information processing capacities are unlikely to be addressed by DPPs in isolation. Studies have shown that even when sustainability information is available, consumer uptake may be limited due to information overload, lack of trust, or difficulties in understanding technical indicators [11]. Without broader initiatives to educate consumers and promote repair and reuse, DPPs may struggle to drive meaningful change in purchasing and disposal habits.

From a business perspective, direct information gaps might still be a challenge if companies may be reluctant to disclose sensitive product or material data due to fears of losing competitive advantage, particularly in industries with rapid innovation cycles or short product lifespans [11,57]. These concerns are closely tied to market dynamics and competition patterns, where transparency may be perceived as a strategic risk. This reluctance points to the importance of data governance, privacy protection, and appropriate incentives for companies to engage in transparent data-sharing practices. Furthermore, implementing DPPs incurs costs related to technology integration, data management, and training, which may be prohibitive for smaller companies. Policies that support SMEs through funding, technical assistance, and training may be necessary to ensure equitable DPP implementation across industries.

From a policy perspective, macro-policy volatility, particularly unknown requirements or delays in delegated acts under the ESPR, introduces legal uncertainty for businesses. This may deter investment in interoperable systems and DPP-readiness.

Beyond the study’s focus on information barriers to circularity, context-relevant technical challenges on standardisation and interoperability are discussed in the following due to their crucial role in determining whether information can be effectively exchanged across product life cycles. The proliferation of divergent data standards across sectors presents a major barrier to the implementation of DPPs and, finally, the uptake of information. A key root cause is the historical development of isolated, sector-specific data models and classification systems tailored to local operational, sector-specific, or regulatory needs. As a result, industries such as automotive, electronics, and chemicals have adopted fragmented terminologies, data structures, and semantic interpretations that are incompatible with each other [11,54]. These incompatibilities are further exacerbated by semantic heterogeneity, where identical data fields (e.g., “repairability” or “recyclability”) are defined and measured differently across contexts [56]. The CIRPASS analysis “Standardisation gaps and roadmap” [63] of the current standards landscape revealed that while most technical layers for DPP system architectures are already covered by existing standards, a critical gap exists at the interface level between coexisting architectures. The central challenge is not the absence of standards per se but the lack of interoperability between standardisation schemes. This creates friction where different identifier systems or governance models interact, for example, between centrally governed unique identifiers and those issued by economic operators themselves. As the CIRPASS report highlights, ensuring semantic, technical, and organisational interoperability will require updates to existing application-level standards and clear specifications via delegated acts. In addition, organisational reluctance to share data and abandon legacy enterprise systems persists, particularly where intellectual property or competitive advantage is at stake [57].

Real-world implementations of DPPs provide valuable insights into practical challenges and adopted solutions. The Global Battery Alliance’s Battery Passport, involving stakeholders such as Audi and LG Chem, tackled substantial issues related to harmonising diverse data standards, ensuring compliance with international data privacy regulations, and managing stakeholder cooperation. These challenges were addressed through federated databases, standardised data frameworks, and clear governance structures [64]. Similarly, the CIRPASS project demonstrated DPP feasibility for electronics, revealing significant barriers in data interoperability, intellectual property concerns, and varied stakeholder technological readiness. CIRPASS effectively mitigated these issues through sector-specific interoperability guidelines, dynamic access management, and extensive stakeholder engagement to harmonise data standards [58,65].

While this study presents a structured overview of information barriers to circularity and discusses the potential of DPPs, several study limitations must be acknowledged:

First, the analysis is limited to information barriers without evaluating the technical system architecture or implementation costs of DPPs in detail. Although standardisation and interoperability are discussed, a dedicated technical analysis of system design (e.g., identifier architectures, access management protocols) is beyond the scope of this literature review study.

Second, during the literature review, it became clear to focus on electronics and exclude sector-specific nuances from other regulated product groups, such as textiles or batteries, due to the diversity and number of challenges. This may exhibit distinct data needs or stakeholder dynamics. Moreover, the focus on one sector may limit the generalizability and applicability across other product categories or SMEs.

Third, the use of the concepts DPP and CE with their goals are used as search strings, which could potentially constrain the spectrum of identified barriers, omitting some that may be critical in other contexts or product systems. Therefore, this study does not claim representativeness of the screened literature but provides a comprehensive overview for in-depth research on the particular life cycle stages or stakeholders. Furthermore, the high momentum of DPP development and the topic of information transparency might lead to parallel recent studies.

6. Conclusions

The results of this study demonstrate that DPPs hold significant potential to address information barriers across the product lifecycle, provided that essential data are made available, accessible, and interoperable. The mapping of 77 information barriers revealed that many CE strategies (such as recycling, reuse, or design for longevity) are hindered not only by missing information but by fragmented, inaccessible, or non-standardised data structures. The DPP can provide structured, machine-readable information to support traceability (e.g., supplier data), operational guidance (e.g., disassembly instructions), and performance indicators (e.g., repairability scores), thus facilitating compliance, design improvement, and sustainable consumption decisions. However, the final DPP design towards its technical characteristics as well as contained information (including their granularity) are yet unclear and will be defined in future legislation for individual product groups.

6.1. Practical Implications

From a regulatory perspective, the DPP can support market surveillance by enabling real-time digital verification of compliance and documentation obligations (e.g., energy labels, test documentation, substance declarations), reducing inspection costs and administrative burdens, and improving enforcement capabilities. However, the technical features of the DPP can only maintain the validity of the information but not certify their correctness in the first place—audits and certifications remain a practical approach. Realising this potential requires aligning information governance mechanisms with the upcoming delegated acts under the ESPR. These legal specifications will need to clarify what information must be included, who provides it, and how it is verified, particularly considering data quality, intellectual property, and organisational accountability.

For businesses, the study highlights the importance of know-how. Organisational skills and digital literacy are needed to generate, manage, and update information in line with DPP requirements. Only with accurate and reliable information can data users effectively engage in CE practices. Practical implementation will depend on training programmes, harmonised formats, and collaborative approaches. These trainings might include obligated stakeholders such as producers on DPP documentation and product designers in data availability for ecodesign improvements, using feedback mechanisms within DPP systems from repair or recycling. Further trainings could include regulatory data handling for compliance officers as well as general campaigns to raise awareness among downstream users in accessing and using the DPP. Public–private partnerships can play a role in establishing knowledge hubs and demonstration projects.

Furthermore, structural barriers might prevail due to the access and integration of data from international supply chains. Furthermore, the willingness to share information has to be given. For incentivisation, business cases can be demonstrated that show economic advantages.

6.2. Outlook for Future Research

While direct information barriers might be easily overcome by providing the missing information, they might still not be easy to generate in the first place. Thus, for each identified direct information barrier, the sustainable impact should be quantified in the context of the necessary effort and other aspects, such as intellectual property. Indirect barriers need further research on how each barrier might be indirectly overcome by providing data through the DPP, e.g., to improve barriers of awareness, consumer perception, and low or missing demand for sustainable products.

To evaluate the relevance of each information, the effort to provide specific information as well as commercial or privacy interest might be taken into account, taking into account the literature that already identified potentially relevant information. These questions have to be subject to further research, including stakeholder consultation and consensus processes, in particular on the EU level, for the development of harmonised information architecture [65].