literature review circular economy

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, a systematic literature review on circular economy practices: challenges, opportunities and future trends.

Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies

ISSN : 2053-4604

Article publication date: 18 January 2022

Issue publication date: 30 November 2022

The circular economy (CE) is an evolving subject transitioning from conceptualization to empirical testing. Over the past decade, researchers have done an exhaustive study to understand the concept of CE and its realized values both financially and environmentally on organizations that have traditional business models based on linear consumption. For understanding the transitional phenomena completely, the paper aims to review the current and emerging research trends in CE to ascertain future direction.

Design/methodology/approach

The research was conducted on 91 articles published in the study area during the past decade (2016–2021) in renowned peer-reviewed journals. The criteria set to review literature are based on the following assortment: CE drivers, CE barriers, definitions by different authors, yearly distribution of the publication, research publisher and journals, google citation and methodology used in the selected research articles.

The study suggests that researchers from the selected years are keen to understand the transition and its critical factors by bringing forward frameworks and incorporating CE with digital technologies. The digital technology implied are Industrial Technology (IR) 4.0, Big Data, Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Data Analytics to increase organizational and environmental performance. CE researchers need to use empirical testing in different sectors to understand and bring forward more improvised business models and practices according to the dynamics of the industry.

Originality/value

The literature review suggests gaps exist to integrate the micro, meso and macro levels to get CE implementation's system-wide benefits. The study has also identified that many CE frameworks available in the literature for implementation must be empirically tested to yield performance results.

• Sustainability
• Systematic literature review
• Meta-analysis
• Circular economy
• Green technology
• Systematic review

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the Beijing Key Laboratory of Urban Spatial Information Engineering (No. 20210218) and Research Center of ILMA University.

Khan, S.A.R. , Shah, A.S.A. , Yu, Z. and Tanveer, M. (2022), "A systematic literature review on circular economy practices: challenges, opportunities and future trends", Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies , Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 754-795. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-09-2021-0349

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

A systematic literature review on circular economy practices: challenges, opportunities and future trends

Purpose The circular economy (CE) is an evolving subject transitioning from conceptualization to empirical testing. Over the past decade, researchers have done an exhaustive study to understand the concept of CE and its realized values both financially and environmentally on organizations that have traditional business models based on linear consumption. For understanding the transitional phenomena completely, the paper aims to review the current and emerging research trends in CE to ascertain future direction. Design/methodology/approach The research was conducted on 91 articles published in the study area during the past decade (2016–2021) in renowned peer-reviewed journals. The criteria set to review literature are based on the following assortment: CE drivers, CE barriers, definitions by different authors, yearly distribution of the publication, research publisher and journals, google citation and methodology used in the selected research articles. Findings The study suggests that researchers from the selected years are keen to understand the transition and its critical factors by bringing forward frameworks and incorporating CE with digital technologies. The digital technology implied are Industrial Technology (IR) 4.0, Big Data, Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Data Analytics to increase organizational and environmental performance. CE researchers need to use empirical testing in different sectors to understand and bring forward more improvised business models and practices according to the dynamics of the industry. Originality/value The literature review suggests gaps exist to integrate the micro, meso and macro levels to get CE implementation's system-wide benefits. The study has also identified that many CE frameworks available in the literature for implementation must be empirically tested to yield performance results.

• Related Documents

Conceptualising innovative price models: the RITE framework

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to lay a current, research-based foundation for investigation of the concept of innovative price models and its connection to business models. Design/methodology/approach The design is composed of a structured literature review of articles on price models published in 22 journals during 42 years. This then serves as a base for a subsequent conceptual discussion about the foundation of innovative price models. Findings The literature review yields only very few results that are loosely scattered across various areas and mostly without any kind of deeper exploration of the concept of price models. The paper therefore goes on to conceptually explore some fundamental conditions that might influence or even determine price models. The final outcome of this exploration is the relation, intention, technology and environment (RITE) framework that is a meta-model for conceptualising innovative price models. Research limitations/implications The literature review could include additional journals and areas, and empirical testing of the RITE framework as yet has been limited. Practical implications The RITE framework can be used by practitioners as a tool for investigating the potential and usefulness of developing the capability to handle innovative price models. Originality/value The RITE framework provides fundamental conditions, which influence, or even determine, how innovative price models are developed and applied.

Circular economy and real estate: the legal (im)possibilities of operational lease

Purpose A paradigm in circular economy (CE) is that suppliers retain ownership of their products and materials, and that the users “only” pay for services. In many legal systems, however, elements incorporated in a building are considered to be fixtures, and therefore legally part of the building. This means that ensuring multi-cyclic behaviour of individual building elements (e.g. the facade or a window) is not so evident. This paper explores, from the perspective of Dutch law, how to secure the ownership of the supplier or to find alternatives within the existing system of property law. Design/methodology/approach The authors performed a literature review of both CE and (Dutch) property law. The results of these reviews are discussed and illustrated by legal case studies. Findings The options principally advocated within CE to retain ownership of building parts leave legal uncertainties and do not offer a solid basis for the development of circular business models, especially considering immovables and fixtures. For these categories, buy-back and take-back contracts, and models for reuse and recycling seem more promising. Research limitations/implications The research is limited to a literature review. Although the legal principles discussed in this paper are valid for both civil and common law systems, and similar findings might, therefore, be expected internationally, this study focused on the specific Dutch legal context. Comparative legal research and research of best practices in the building industry is needed to test the applicability of the findings in an international context. Practical implications Following the findings, CE initiatives within real estate and the construction industry should focus on alternative implementations of the operational lease concept, taking into account CE’s ambitions to reduce the extraction of raw materials. Originality/value At the moment the challenges that property law poses CE, real estate and operational lease are hardly discussed within the literature. This paper explores this gap.

Digital transformation of organizations: what do we know and where to go next?

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to identify the development of the digital transformation literature and to the systematic literature review methodology.Design/methodology/approachThe authors run a systematic literature review, followed by a rigorous thematic analysis of both academic and grey literature dataset, in order to develop a conceptual map of organizations' digital transformation. The authors aggregate the concepts and topics identified across the literature to find that they overwhelmingly tackle digital business models. At the same time, the authors identify a major blind spot resulting from ignoring the organization itself as a unit of analysis.FindingsThe findings show that developing a digital theory of the organization or the theory of digitally transformed organization is a major challenge to management researchers. The analysis exposed numerous research gaps that can be helpful for future research directions.Originality/valueDigital transformation research enjoys an increasingly rapid rise to recognition across many academic disciplines and strongly impacts the management domain. adopt the view that published documents reflect the collective understanding of a phenomenon. This paper contributes to filtering the digital transformation literature, clarify complex relation between digital transformations of organizations and identify the key blind points.

“Enabling circular business models in the fashion industry: the role of digital innovation”

PurposeDigital innovation and circular business model innovation are two critical enablers of a circular economy. A wide variety of digital technologies such as blockchain, 3D printing, cyber-physical systems, or big data also diverges the applications of digital technologies in circular business models. Given heterogeneous attributes of circular business models and digital technologies, the selections of digital technologies and circular business models might be highly distinctive within and between sectorial contexts. This paper examines digital circular business models in the context of the fashion industry and its multiple actors. This industry as the world’s second polluting industry requires an urgent circular economy (CE) transition with less resource consumption, lower waste emissions and a more stable economy.Design/methodology/approachAn inductive, exploratory multiple-case study method is employed to investigate the ten cases of different sized fashion companies (i.e. large, small medium-sized firm (SME) and startup firms). The comparison across cases is conducted to understand fashion firms' distinct behaviours in adopting various digital circular economy strategies.FindingsThe paper presents three archetypes of digital-based circular business models in the fashion industry: the blockchain-based supply chain model, the service-based model and the pull demand-driven model. Besides incremental innovations, the radical business model and digital innovations as presented in the pull demand-driven model may be crucial to the fashion circular economy transition. The pull demand–driven model may shift the economy from scales to scopes, change the whole process of how the fashion items are forecasted, produced, and used, and reform consumer behaviours. The paths of adopting digital fashion circular business models are also different among large, SMEs and startup fashion firms.Practical implicationsThe study provides business managers with empirical insights on how circular business models (CBMs) should be chosen according to intrinsic business capacities, technological competences and CE strategies. The emerging trends of new fashion markets (e.g. rental, subscription) and consumers' sustainable awareness should be not be neglected. Moreover, besides adopting recycling and reuse strategies, large fashion incumbents consider collaborating with other technology suppliers and startup companies to incubate more radical innovations.Social implicationsAppropriate policies and regulations should be enacted to enable the digital CE transition. Market patterns and consumer acceptances are considered highly challenging to these digital fashion models. A balanced policy on both the demand and supply sides are suggested. The one-side policy may fail CBMs that entail an upside-down collaboration of both producers and consumers. Moreover, it is perhaps time to rethink how to reduce unnecessary new demand rather than repeatedly producing and recycling.Originality/valueThe pace of CE research is lagging far behind the accelerating environmental contamination by the fashion industry. The study aims to narrow the gap between theory and practice to harmonise fashion firms' orchestration and accelerate the transition of the fashion industry towards the CE. This study examines diverse types of digital technologies in different circular business models in a homogeneous context of the fashion industry with heterogeneous firm types.

Alternatives to solve SDG trade-offs and to enforce SDG synergies: a systematic literature review

PurposeThis paper takes a critical view of synergies and trade-offs and discloses the practices that countries and companies should apply to achieve sustainable development.Design/methodology/approachThis paper offers a systematic literature review of 408 papers to find models of sustainable development goals (SDGs) interaction with the aim of shedding light on the existing synergies and trade-offs and finding solutions to enhance these synergies and minimize the trade-offs.FindingsBoth rich and developing countries should follow multiple strategies to improve the quality of life of their citizens. Developing countries should focus on eradicating poverty. Rich countries should apply new economic models that are more likely to be environmental-friendly. Finally, the topic of SDGs should be revisited by the United Nations.Practical implicationsBoosting the quality of education and providing clean energy are two of the most relevant actions that should to be taken by countries, as they will accelerate the fulfilment of all the other SDGs. The use of circular economic models or new business models, such as the sharing economy, is essential to the achievement of sustained economic growth without negative environmental impact.Originality/valueThe paper analyzes SDG interactions and offers a critical vision of practices that countries and companies should adhere to for achieving sustainable development.

Engagement, inclusion, knowledge sharing, and talent development: is reverse mentoring a panacea to all? Findings from literature review

Purpose The purpose of this study is to systematically review the practice of reverse mentoring and draw a timeline of the research over the past two decades. Considering the novelty of this intervention, this paper proposed an agenda for future research on this burgeoning topic. Design/methodology/approach By adopting narrative literature review and Gregory and Denniss’ (2018) four-step process, this paper reviewed 54 studies grounded in conceptual, literature review and empirical research published between 1998 and 2020. Findings The articles included in the literature review on reverse mentoring research were summarized according to journal publications, research methodologies, contextual settings, theoretical framework, purpose and outcomes. Reverse mentoring studies are dominantly published in educational journals using primarily qualitative and conceptual approaches to explore both academic and business contexts within the USA and Europe. Theories frequently used to frame and examine the need of reverse mentoring included social exchange theory and leader-member exchange theory. The fundamental purpose of reverse mentoring research is to transfer knowledge and to bridge the technology divide between intergenerational groups. Reverse mentoring has been used to promote inclusivity between multiple generations in relation to gender, ethnicity and culture. Originality/value As per the knowledge, this is the first-ever comprehensive English summary of reverse mentoring research done in the past two decades. Findings from this research can be used to better understand reverse mentoring research trends and directions.

Carsharing: a systematic literature review and research agenda

PurposeFollowing the recent surge in research on carsharing, the paper synthesizes this growing literature to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of research and to identify directions for future work. Specifically, this study details implications for service theory and practice.Design/methodology/approachSystematic selection and analysis of 279 papers from the existing literature, published between 1996 and 2020.FindingsThe literature review identified four key themes: business models, drivers and barriers, customer behavior, and vehicle balancing.Practical implicationsFor managers, the study illuminates the importance of collaboration among stakeholders within the automotive sector for purposes of widening their customer base and maximizing utilization and profits. For policy makers, their important role in supporting carsharing take-off is highlighted with emphasis on balancing support rendered to different mobility services to promote mutual success.Originality/valueThis is the first systematic multi-disciplinary literature review of carsharing. It integrates insights from transportation, environmental, and business studies, identifying gaps in the existing research and specifically suggesting implications for service research.

Restaurant and foodservice research

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a review of the foodservice and restaurant literature that has been published over the past 10 years in the top hospitality and tourism journals. This information will be used to identify the key trends and topics studied over the past decade, and help to identify the gaps that appear in the research to identify opportunities for advancing future research in the area of foodservice and restaurant management. Design/methodology/approach This paper takes the form of a critical review of the extant literature that has been done in the foodservice and restaurant industries. Literature from the past 10 years will be qualitatively assessed to determine trends and gaps in the research to help guide the direction for future research. Findings The findings show that the past 10 years have seen an increase in the number of and the quality of foodservice and restaurant management research articles. The topics have been diverse and the findings have explored the changing and evolving segments of the foodservice industry, restaurant operations, service quality in foodservice, restaurant finance, foodservice marketing, food safety and healthfulness and the increased role of technology in the industry. Research limitations/implications Given the number of research papers done over the past 10 years in the area of foodservice, it is possible that some research has been missed and that some specific topics within the breadth and depth of the foodservice industry could have lacked sufficient coverage in this one paper. The implications from this paper are that it can be used to inform academics and practitioners where there is room for more research, it could provide ideas for more in-depth discussion of a specific topic and it is a detailed start into assessing the research done of late. Originality/value This paper helps foodservice researchers in determining where past research has gone and gives future direction for meaningful research to be done in the foodservice area moving forward to inform academicians and practitioners in the industry.

Responsible entrepreneurship: outlining the contingencies

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to give an up-to-date assessment of key topics and methods discussed in the current literature on responsible entrepreneurship. In the past years, sustainable development itself has become a more popular and important topic in the academic literature and hence the field of sustainable entrepreneurship has become a greater topic of interest and opportunity for solution. Therefore, a systematic literature review is conducted to assess new contributions to the field and its potential for the future of sustainable development, with a focus on responsible innovation.Design/methodology/approachSystematic, evidence-informed literature review following Tranfieldet al.(2003).FindingsBased on a conceptual literature review, five streams of research that responsible entrepreneurs distinguish from purely for-profit entrepreneurs are identified and discussed: walking the line between profit creation and value creation for society; business models of responsible entrepreneurs; their role in transforming society; getting ready to innovate responsibly; and the role of market incentives to foster sustainable business practices.Originality/valueThe structured literature review allows to identify future research paths. In detail, ideas as regards the management of upcoming tensions when trying to combine profit creation and value creation for society, and finally, the way innovation processes need to be rethought when innovating responsibly are discussed and outlined.

A systematic literature review of open innovation in small and medium enterprises in the past decade

Purpose There is a growing trend of open innovation (OI) in small and middle enterprises (SMEs) these days, yet the implementation of OI in SMEs is a challenge because of their financial and resource constraints. This study aims to identify and analyze the past trends, barriers and outcomes and major factors influencing the implementation of OI in SMEs. Design/methodology/approach This review is based on 40 published articles from the Scopus database. It selects highly cited papers published from 2010 to 2019. The PRISMA statement template is used to explain the overall process of selection and rejections of the relevant articles. Findings The study contributes in two ways. First, through a comprehensive literature review, the authors highlight the overall development of the concept of OI in the literature over the past 10 years and highlight the findings of the significant studies. Second, the authors provide detailed representations of the OI literature by calculating yearly publications and identifying the SMEs which mostly implement OI practices, journals that publish a relevant article, OI-related publications in different disciplines and geographical locations in which most of the OI studies have been conducted. The study also reveals the most cited articles, journals and authors. Originality/value The authors conclude this paper with the argument that although much research has been done in the OI field, still there is a need to establish tools, models and methods that could facilitate SMEs in OI, especially for developing economies.

Export Citation Format

Share document.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 14 May 2024

Comparisons of stakeholders' influences, inter-relationships, and obstacles for circular economy implementation on existing building sectors

• Sakdirat Kaewunruen 1 ,
• Patrick Teuffel 2 ,
• Ayfer Donmez Cavdar 3 ,
• Otso Valta 4 ,
• Tatjana Tambovceva 5 &
• Diana Bajare 6  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  11046 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

49 Accesses

Metrics details

• Civil engineering
• Sustainability

Buildings are energy- and resource-hungry: their construction and use account for around 39% of global carbon dioxide emissions; they consume around 40% of all the energy produced; they are responsible for over 35% of the EU's total waste generation; and account for about 50% of all extracted (fossil) materials. Therefore, they present a significant challenge to meeting national and international Net Zero targets of reducing greenhouse emissions and fossil resource use. The CircularB Project, is at the heart of this issue, which will underpin synergies of multi-scale circular perspectives (from materials, to components, to assets and built environments), digital transformation solutions, data-driven and complexity science, stakeholder behavioral science, and interdisciplinary capabilities towards achievable, affordable and marketable circular solutions for both new and existing buildings, for sustainable urban design, and for circular built environments across Europe. This paper contributes to the project by deriving new insights into the stakeholders’ influences, inter-relationships, and obstacles in the implementation of circular economy concepts on existing building stocks in Europe, which represent over 90% of whole building assets. In order to identify and derive the insights, our study is rigorously based on (i) a robust critical literature review of key documentations such as articles, standards, policy reports, strategic roadmaps and white papers; and (ii) interviews with relevant stakeholders and decision makers. Uniquely, our work spans across all scales of CE implementation from materials, to products and components, to existing building stocks, and to living built environments. The findings point out the current challenges and obstacles required to be tackled. Inadequacies of financial incentives and governmental enforcement (via policy, legislation, or directive) are commonly found to be the most critical obstacles found throughout Europe. Circular economy is the global challenge and not just a single country can resolve the climate issue without the cooperation of other countries. The insights thus highlight the essential need for harmonized actions and tactical/pragmatic policies promoted and regulated by the European Commission, national and local governments who can dominate the influence, promote inter-relationship, and overcome the barriers towards circular economy much more effectively.

Similar content being viewed by others

Eco-building for eco-living, an essential step to face climate change

Digital technologies for construction sustainability: Status quo, challenges, and future prospects

Reducing carbon emissions through green renewal: insights from residential energy consumption in Chinese urban inventory districts from an evidence-based decision-making perspective

Introduction.

The European Commission has recently reported that, by 2050, the world will exploit tripple of today’s resource demand. In the next 40 years, the world consumption of key materials such as biomass, fossil fuels, metals and minerals is expected to double, while waste generation is estimated to increase by 70% 1 . The resource demand exoponentially induces the economic activities, products and infrastructures, resulting in emormous greenhouse gas emission that is the root cause of climate change. The European Green Deal has thus launched a concerted strategy for a climate-neutral, resource-efficient and competitive economy 1 . In order to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, we need to scale up circular economy (CE) guidelines to the mainstream industry practices and economic instruments. This action will decouple economic growth from raw resource consumption, while ensure the long-term competitiveness of the EU and leaving no one behind. To fulfill this ambition, the EU develops the EU Green Deal to accelerate the transition towards a regenerative growth model that strives to reduce its consumption footprint and double its circular material use rate in the coming decade.

The applications of CE principles in real estate and building sectors are mostly restricted to new building stocks. This is because the circularity can be embedded and facilitated at the early design stage aiming for adaptability, modularity, durability, waste reduction and high-quality management. The early design of new building stocks can improve the whole life cycle of a building and its components by prolonging service lives, improving maintainability, increasing the ability to reuse, repurpose, and recycle, and minimizing energy consumption and wastes of materials, components and building assets at different stages of life cycle. In contrast, circular economy practices within existing buildings are not well established nor adequately implemented. The definitions of circular economy, and more specifically circularity in the built environment, are currently diverse, incoherent and unsystematic. This is because the purposes and goals to redevelop, revamp or renovate existing buildings at different ages (or service lives) can be highly varied. CE needs to be considered as a business strategy, and should not be viewed merely a waste management or a design strategy. Improving existing buildings' services and added values (e.g. nearly zero energy consumption, prolonged building components, removal of toxicity and pollution, ability and potential to reuse and even upcycling, etc.) should be rather be emphasised instead of only viewing those as potential material banks for downcycling. In fact, recovered materials and components from existing buildings face a critical barrier. Their direct reuse is skeptical due to various uncertainties in their technical compatibility, valorisation potential, and quality appraisal. This causes further downcycling processes and exacerbating extra resources and energy losses.

A key goal that generates most actions and activities within existing building stocks is to minimize energy consumption within the existing buildings (i.e. towards zero energy consumption). It has also been reported that 40% of total energy consumption came from buildings, which resonates with the US buildings accounting for 41% of their energy consumption and buildings all together accounted for 1/3 of the world’s energy use 1 , 2 , 3 . The need to combat the extensive energy use in buildings has been paramount and the EU imposed Energy Performance of Buildings Directive targets: all new public buildings had to be nearly zero-energy by 2018 and all new buildings had to be nearly zero-energy by the end of 2020. In October 2020, the European Commission (EC) published its new Renovation Wave Strategy to further improve the energy performance of existing buildings. It aims to double renovation rates in the next 10 years while ensuring that renovations lead to higher energy, circular economy, and resource efficiency 1 , 2 , 3 . Although existing building blocks are the majority of whole building stocks, the rate of renovation of existing buildings in Europe is currently between 1.2 and 1.4% per year and therefore the largest part of the European building stock continues to rely on a large extent on fossil fuels for its energy needs. For example, the share of the annual building stock that undergoes a major renovation can be: (i) below 1% in Spain, Poland, Italy or Sweden; (ii) around 1% in the Netherlands or Lithuania; (iii) above 1.5% in other countries like Germany, France or Austria 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 . This implies that the transitions to net zero are at risk due to the fact that challenges and barriers to implement circular built environments exist.

According to the European Commission, 35 million existing buildings could be renovated and up to 160,000 additional green jobs created in the construction sector by 2030. Such energy-efficiency renovations are deemed crucial for making Europe climate-neutral by 2050 according to Ref. 8 and can accelerate the transition towards a regenerative growth model in accordance with the EU Circular Economy Action Plan. Embracing higher energy reduction innovations (through further circular design, retrofit and renovation strategies) is thus desperately needed to further address net zero energy, building lifecycle and climate change adaptation issues, and has the associated potential to timely benefit business and competitiveness for Europe in the digital era. To date, European and Member State sustainable targets have been pushed back due to the coronavirus pandemic and lack of variety of building energy reduction and affordable harvesting techniques suitable for particular stages of building lifecycle in European markets 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 . Reducing energy consumption is a top priority under the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) and the 2020 and 2050 objectives on energy efficiency. While the proposal places energy as one target, it is observed how European directives are the driver of designs and urban planning that neglects the climate change adaptation, digital transformation, and lifecycle design approaches 13 , 14 , 15 . Therefore, any new strategies to implement circular economy to existing building stocks will timely progress the transaction from the lack of any tailored design and optimal renovation methods to a new suite of adaptive and diverse circular re-design, retrofit, and renovation methods, which enrich co-values, regenerative circularity, lifecycle benefits, digital transformation, and relationships with the natural environment.

A range of global grand challenges have been identified at the core of the emerging global trends to 2050, including urbanization, population growth, inter/intra-national social disparities, demographic change, climate change, and ethics. The evidence of climate change, and its effects on legislative requirements, and market demands, has moved the circularity and energy independence agenda to an important and core position to act immediately in Europe 16 , 17 , 18 . The priority towards circularity, zero energy buildings, and beyond has been further amplified by low carbon targets which are high in the policy agenda after the ratification of the Paris Agreement. In contrast, a vast number of uncertainties, technology readiness, quality assurance, circularity and lifecycle issues have not been taken into account for in the past building performance and cost optimisation models, and these present a real market barrier and technology gap to be bridged. Within this broader context, a new EU Cost Action CircularB ( https://circularb.eu/ ) has a key role to play since it has been described as a game changer, which can introduce major economic and social impacts e.g. potentials to reuse and recycle, energy consumption reduction, cash savings, fuel efficiency, novel cost-effective and resilient renovation technologies, new energy harvesting apparatus, and new circular business capabilities. While quantifying these positive impacts, optimal benefits have been estimated between 100 and 170 kWm/m 2 annually per building over its life cycle (by the European Commission’s Building Directive) 19 , 20 , 21 .

Although every professional involved with the built environment sector attempts to embrace sustainability, circular economy and energy efficiency as the primary driver of their design, net zero has not been achieved at the European level 20 , 21 , 43 . This is evident by the annual deep energy renovation rate of merely 0.2% on average in the EU 20 . Efforts can be further encumbered by energy and environmental targets legislated under building design codes, which in their negotiation between ambitions and market readiness often default to the latter. Both EU Regulation and Voluntary Certification Systems focus on energy efficiency of the new buildings. However, the rate of new construction is only around 1% per year in Europe and therefore the highest potential for circular economy implementation and energy efficiency improvement lies in the existing building stocks (through deep renovation, retrofit, and repurpose). Social and economic growth, security and sustainability in Europe are therefore at risk of being compromised since existing building stocks have not been been sufficiently equipped with highly-efficent nearly zero energy building (NZEB) technologies. With increasing public demands for energy exposed to meta-operational uncertainties (under various extreme climate conditions), the building sector could fail to meet net zero target. In particular, the growing dependency of Europe on energy imports and expected high energy cost raise significant concerns on energy efficiency and the necessity for novel technologies to save and self-harvest energy within the built environment. Therefore, various actions for existing building stocks are commonly incentivised by the purpose towards energy efficiency. With this in mind, the implementation of circular economy practices in existing built environments can be further embeded to embrace on the detailed circular design upgrade for new, and retrofit and renovation of existing buildings and interconnected urban infrastructures for future cities, which are currently aging and inadequate. The existing building stocks will then reduce thier reliance on a large extent of energy and heat supply by fossil fuels, while having better capacity to enable regenerative growth through reusing, repurposing, recycling strategies. This study will thus review lessons learnt from the emerging sustainability and energy standards that are based on systems thinking approach and socio-technical systems. State-of-the-art reviews will therefore inform a new set of parameters and indicators that describe the higher levels of performance needed in both new and existing built environments of the future, and in so doing provide guidance, examples and an active and engaged community of experts and practitioners to deliver circular re-design, retrofit and renovation models and technology assemblies 22 .

The complexity of circular economy implementation for existing building stocks is much more pronounced in comparison to that for new buildings. This challenge is due to the fact that interventions into existing building stocks can occur at any stage of service lives (e.g. after 10 years; 20 years; or 50 years of usage), making it very difficult to attain an attractive value-based business case for circular intervention practices 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 . These aspects have raised not only the complexity but also the uncertainties in decision making and effective technical solutions that could seamlessly enable the transition to net zero. Figure  1 illustrates the difference between circular economy implementation to new and existing building stocks. It is clear that, when dealing with existing or aging building stocks, complex and refined scope of circular economy implementation is very evidential. The decision making mechanisms and influences among stakeholders become more delicate and personalized. This has raised a new challenge in developing pragmatic policies to promote and incentivize the adoption of circular economy perspective towards net zero.

Comparison of lifecycle and circular economy implementation between new and existing building stocks.

This study aims to determine new insights into the stakeholders’ influences, inter-relationships, and obstacles in the implementation of circular economy concepts targeted at existing building stocks in Europe. The existing building stocks represent over 90% of whole building assets combined. On this ground, the insights in this study will be very critical and instrumental to the CE implementation and transition to net zero. In this study, the research methodologies are rigorously based on (i) a robust critical literature review of key documentations such as articles, standards, policy reports, strategic roadmaps and white papers; and (ii) interviews with relevant stakeholders and decision makers. The information in the first part will help to identify suitable questions for different stakeholders (to be interviewed in the later part). It is very clear from previous studies 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 that existing building stocks yield more challenges than the new building stocks do. The methods into circular buildings at large may not be sufficient nor suitable to convince any circular economy adoption in existing building sector 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 . Since there are many types of buildings and concepts for circular economy, our work consider all scales of CE implementation from materials viewpoint, to products and components, to existing building stocks, and to living built environments. The contribution of the study will enhance the policies and incentives to co-create and promote the implementation of circular economy for existing building stocks maximising sustainable impacts, while still minimising burdens on people and businesses.

Review on current market barriers of building retrofit and renovation

Circular economy implementation actions in existing, aging built environments are mostly inspired by certain key outcomes including (i) minimised energy consumption (via deep renovation); (ii) prolonged service life of assets (through enhanced maintenance, reconstruction or retrofit); (iii) reduced wastes (by increasing recycling, reuse, repurpose, or rebrand); (iv) adaptation to climate change and external uncertainties (via retrofit or reconditioning); and (v) enriched structural condition and/or architectural aesthetics (through redevelopment or refurbishment). In fact, most actions through retrofit and renovation are incentivized to minimise energy usage (e.g. the annual deep energy renovation rate is 0.2% on average in the EU 20 ), enabling either energy independence, or near zero energy buildings (NZEB), or zero energy buildings (ZEB), and even or energy positive buildings (EPB). The market for NZEB, ZEB and EPB is still emerging (especially for existing building segment) and therefore the existing collaboration structures are not yet able to demonstrate “successful” long-term collaboration apart from their contribution to exemplary NZEB new buildings and some extent of renovation projects. IEA EBC Annex 56 identified the current barriers in the renovation process (shining examples brochure available in 28 ). Over the past decades, there have been many researchers across EU working on a number of projects related to building retrofit and renovation. In particular for existing building stocks, there are some key projects that could be instrumental to our study to define barriers to overcome the circular economy implementation to existing building markets. These projects include COHERENO, REFURB, RENERGY, and LOCARBO, which are closely related to the scope of this study.

In Europe, the COHERENO project (2013–2016) aimed to better understand the emergence of collaboration structures for NZEB renovation of owner-occupied single-family housing (SFH). IEE projects AIDA and PassREg both found organised study tours of best practice NZEBs to be an effective method of convincing municipal employees and decision makers the importance of including NZEB performance in design and tendering criteria for their building projects. AIDA project evaluated the major reasons for the municipalities against collaboration. The evaluation showed that two main reasons that hindered the municipalities to cooperate are: the tensed financial situation, where available budget is often needed for other investments and no budget seems to be left for investments in energy efficient buildings, and; the unwillingness of the municipalities to take action towards NZEB and RES. The experience has shown that energy efficient buildings have been considered as low or no importance issues for the communities. A further point, which was more often mentioned, was the circumstance that the municipalities did not have building projects, which were in line with the AIDA timeframe. Even when collaboration with a municipality was accomplished, many obstacles had to be overcome. Missing funds and unresolved financial questions represented the main obstacles to a successful collaboration. But also the missing personal awareness of the Mayor, insufficient/inadequate public policy instruments and other high-level officials as well as not established NZEB standards in the municipalities were bigger barriers. Very important for a successful collaboration was the on-going communication and active interaction, as well as the motivation of the municipalities, a flexible Integrated Energy Design (IED) work plan and an existing contact person at the right technical level in the municipality.

An important barrier that requires further work is the fact that the renovation market is principally supply driven rather than demand (consumer) driven 36 , 37 , 38 . In this sequence, the European’s REFURB project aimed to bridge the gap between supply and demand side. One outcome of this project is that despite the many experimental programmes and the informed work of certain design teams over the past decades, efficient buildings are still relatively rare and suffer from a lack of popularity, often because of a lack of publicity. Another outcome is a tool to tackle the complex interplay of these barriers through coordinated process organisation, innovation and optimization. European’s RENERGY project aim was to improve, by means of interregional cooperation, the effectiveness of regional development policies in the area of energy as well as to contribute to economic modernisation and increased competitiveness of Europe by turning urban spaces from energy consumers into energy producers. This project brings therefore to the community added value by developing a new and innovative approach and solutions in the field of energy at local and regional levels. The project faced the following issues: high up-front run capital costs of sustainable energy investments for a given amount of capacity. Policies that reduce these costs, such as loans, rebates, grants and tax incentives, could remove this significant barrier but are often lacking at the local level; lack of access to credit or funding for local governments, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and citizens to purchase or invest in renewable energy; lack of skills and experience and information at local governments with RES and decentralized energy system planning. This can lead to resistance towards positive change. Access to information, training, and exchanges can be highly beneficial in tackling this challenge, leading to a skilled workforce that can plan and implement policies, install and operate and maintain these energy systems; misperceptions on technology performance: Proven, cost-effective technologies may be wrongly perceived as risky by local government decision makers as well as by the public if there is little experience with them; numerous legal obstacles: Outdated laws (e.g. building codes, zoning laws, standards, permitting processes) can prevent, discourage or add expense to a RES project. Luckily, many municipalities have it in their power to remove such barriers and; need to transition to a smart energy system: Grid forecasting, smart grid features, and energy storage are not yet widespread, discouraging local governments fromaiming for higher RES targets and ambitious policies while they wait for the grid to be ready.

On the other hand, European’s LOCARBO project sought a change in improved implementation of regional development policies that incorporate actions to increase levels of energy efficiency including public buildings and housing sector. This is to be achieved by finding innovative ways for regional/local authorities to support energy consumers’ behaviour change. LOCARBO is unique by focusing its activities on bottom-up initiatives and mainly because of the approach to handle 3 thematic pillars (services, organizational structures and technological solutions) in a fully integrated way. The issues already addressed in the project are: many of Europe’s local/regional actor struggle with developing targeted, implementation oriented- policies addressing low carbon challenges. This holds particularly for energy wasting buildings irrespective of their ownership or their use. The implementation of these solutions is not targeted enough, related measures are often incidental and fragmented thus results lag behind expectations. Innovative stakeholder involvement measures are emerging, but they are not yet taken up at a significant scale. Specifically, local and regional authorities embark to find their role in these processes as coordination, planning, service provision, monitoring and feedback to policy making. Furthermore, there are various indications raising concerns regarding the reliability of Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) declarations and the quality of the works. The European’s REQUEST IEE Project focused on: identifying issues in respect to existing procedures; highlighting best practices for easy access to reliable EPC input data, delivery of improved quality of the works, as well as more effective compliance frameworks and raising awareness and engaging relevant stakeholders. This project pointed out the following outcomes: need for more support given to homeowners to help them move to the next stage in the customer journey after they have received an EPC outlining the recommendations and the partnerships between the supply and demand sides should be encouraged. The partnerships proved very effective in the pilots for improving communication and building trust at all levels—from project specific partnerships through to partnerships at the local, regional and national levels. Creating a partnership structure brings together a wide range of expertise, strengthening the multi-disciplinary insight from all parties and improving the ability for problem solving.

In order to convince more building owners or influencers to go ahead with circular and energy-independent re-design, retrofit and renovation projects, it is very crucial that the forerunners are able to demonstrate that their projects actually succeeded in achieving the necessary quality for circularity and high energy performance. However, the building process usually starts with an initial concept followed by a number of different steps before finally reaching the operation phase. The time from concept to building site is usually long, perhaps several years. This extended design period involves a large number of different actors with varying levels of influence on the final energy performance of the building. This can make it difficult to actually achieve the energy performance that was set at the beginning of the process. In renovation projects, it can be difficult to compare energy performance and rate of circularity before renovation with the final built result, since the renovation in itself often alters the building in a variety of other ways, for example by improving the indoor environment and offering better possibilities to use the facilities. Levels of activity and numbers of users may be different: the building’s users may not be the same, and may not display the same energy behaviour before and after renovation. Particular consideration and guidance is therefore needed to ensure that the quality of the built result matches the ambition and actually achieves the desired energy savings. There is a challenge to eliminate the long period of time between pre-study and the operation stage (see Fig.  2 ) as well as the overlapping of actors and their ineffective collaboration.

Typical retrofit and renovation process diagram.

During the last two decades, scientific and technological innovation has focused on the preparation of assessment systems and indicators to promote a basic level of energy efficiency. Objections can be raised concerning different interpretations of energy performance and systems boundary condition as it is proposed by EU norms and today’s evaluation methods. The current assessment has influenced design choices by awarding high or low energy certificate scores to only new buildings, of which their energy savings do not make a significant contribution to overall energy sustainability. It is evident that current approach has serious limitation in practice. One of the main objectives of this proposal is to focus on the new knowledge (theoretical and applied), the skills, the novel technologies and the competence that can support new working models that look beyond the scope of NZEB for new buildings, and that could lead to circular economy practices and adaptive and affordable energy-independent, energy-resilient solutions characterized by a wider range of integrated qualitative and quantitative retrofit and renovation innovations for the emerging market of existing buildings. The aim of this study is therefore to stimulate the development and integration of new knowledge, skills and competence at research and practical levels on the basis of multidisciplinary collaborations not commonly possible in a single standards research project. This study will bring together European sustainability researchers, energy harvesting experts, CAD/CAM professionals, building stakeholders and practitioners across a wide spectrum of disciplines to create unique and collaborative knowledge-based policies 29 . Through its participants and interviews, this study will seek to remove barriers and overcome scientific breakthroughs that exist in preventing progress for implementing circular economy practices towards regenerative growth.

This study embarks by engaging experts in CircularB project to preliminarily determine relevant stakeholders (see Fig.  3 ):

Building end-users: building users, owners, and project developers aiming to construct, retrofit, and renovate either new or existing buildings (access to a ready to go platform with complete info for circular economy and renovation;

Public authorities: government, municipalities (“official” platform to support circular re-design and renovation beyond NZEB, case study building, guideline for improved Energy Performance Certificate for ‘beyond NZEB’ building);

Policymakers (guidelines for effective circular re-design, retrofit and renovation; and comprehensive EPC dedicated to both new and existing buildings over various stages of life cycle, guideline of best practices from case study buildings, publications);

Building companies: construction companies and professionals such as engineers, architects, energy advisors, green building consultants (access to circular economy practice, re-design, retrofit and renovation approaches and strategies, training in ‘NZEB and beyond’, integrating the database in platform supported by municipalities, higher number of circualr re-design, retrofit and renovation works); product manufacturers (higher demand for insulation products, systems, ventilation systems and thermal energy storage units); energy suppliers (security of supply, lower energy network costs, reducing energy losses in the distribution networks, potential market for circularity);

Banks and insurers (lower risks for the amortization of the credit and access to attractive split incentives).

Circular economy target groups and interconnections.

From the above, it can be seen that the stakeholders can portray different levels of influences. The end users will mostly interact with facilitators (who are from both sides of supply and policy enabling). This implies that contemporary knowledge and understanding into stakeholders’ influences may be limited and there is a need to further enhance the insights into the stakeholders’ relationship and barriers at different stage of life cycles for existing building sector.

State-of-the art concepts of circular economy practices for existing buildings

Achieving net-zero emissions will require a transformation of the global economy. It is important to note that energy-related emissions make up as much as 83% of CO 2 emissions across land-use systems. Indeed, McKinsey 30 stated that ‘ Effective decarbonization actions include shifting the energy mix away from fossil fuels and toward zero-emissions electricity and other low-emissions energy carriers such as hydrogen; adapting industrial and agricultural processes; increasing energy efficiency and managing demand for energy; utilizing the circular economy; consuming fewer emissions-intensive goods; deploying carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCS) technology; and enhancing sinks of both long-lived and short-lived greenhouse gases ’ 30 . The way for achieving a status beyond NZEBs of new buildings and of existing buildings is to promote the development, implementation, and automation of circular economy strategies by connecting market actors using Industry 4.0 Technologies via digital transformation and by carrying out a series of outreach activities. Innovative circular economy practices and alternative energy harvesting technologies can be included (such as the urban wind turbine successfully developed in WINNERCOST; solar energy developed by SME partners, etc.). Strategies to overcome market barriers to implement circular economy practices beyond NZEBs are through the simplification of the whole process of circular design, retrofit and renovation, to reduce the construction and commissioning stage and also by undertaking pre-simulation through a digital platform enabling the analysis of appropriate circularity strategies, energy performance, life cycle costing and attractive zero-emission/zero-pollution co-benefits.

The circular economy generally implies an industrial economy that can be restorative by design; aims to rely on renewable energy; reduces, monitors, and eliminates the use of energy, water, carbon and toxic chemicals; and eradicates waste through careful design and planning 30 , 31 . As shown in Fig.  4 , the circular economy perspectives for existing building stocks will consume much less resources and energy, while simultaneously being more carbon efficient and maximising waste reduction and management. From this, opportunities in zero energy and positive energy buildings can be identified and a flowchart with the stages for circular design, retrofit and renovation can be designed in order to reach a net zero. The traditional stages to implement circular economy concepts include:

Circular economy perspectives and practices for the existing building stocks.

Although the circular economy concepts and applications to existing building stocks can be realized in practice, the adoption of those measures is unsatisfactory and may not help to achieve the net zero goal by 2050. This is because technological solutions alone cannot resolve the global climate challenge. There is a need to engage societal and indiviual wills to make it happen. As such, the inter-relationship among stakeholders, the influencer and strategies to overcome the barriers are critical to convince the existing building sector to implement circular economy concept towards and beyond net zero. The insights into the influence and inter-relationship among stakeholders of existing building stocks have not been thoroughly identified. Thus, this study will determine and compare the influence and inter-relationship among stakeholders, and will highlight the barriers to implementing circular economy concepts in existing building stocks across Europe.

Methodology

The research adopted a qualitative and on-field approach via semi-structured interviews and dialogue with different stakeholders and operators of the existing building stocks’ value chain (see Fig.  5 ). The non-personal data was collected anonymously without withholding person information. All respondents had given consent for data collection. The data requested in this study was collected and processed by the researchers in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR) and all other applicable EU and UK privacy and data protection legislation. This study is GDPR compliant and has been approved the University of Birmingham’s IRB. The research tasks will determine current policies and practices of circular economy at the building level and associated initiatives, influence, inter-relationships, incentives and barriers. The investigation by semi-structured interviews were conducted across 5 different European countries including Finland (FI), Germany (DE), Latvia (LV), Türkiye (TR), and United Kingdom (UK). These counties constituted intensive research into circular economy in built environments and portrayed the diversity of context, enabling the authors to investigate a variety of dynamics and impacts in the geopolitical and practical fields.

Research methodology.

The semi-structured interviews were preceded by a critical literature review and a desktop study. The review took into account the workshop meetings and discussions with 21 experts and researchers in CircularB project (WP2). These expert interviews have been considered to be substantial for qualitative research 39 , 40 . In general, specialised expert opinions tend to converge after 20 interviews 41 , 42 . In addition, the data from their previous research has been collected to understand the trend and current issues with respect to circular economy implementation in their countries. The in-depth analysis of the data can later point out essential questions for different stakeholders.

On the basis of the initial literature review and desktop study, the stakeholders have been grouped by commercial purpose into: industry stakeholders and non-industry stakeholders. Table 1 defines the detailed stakeholders of existing building sectors across Europe. Consequently, the survey through the stakeholder interviews has been conducted to further gain the crucial information, for later data analyses including (i) ranking for influence, (ii) inter-relationship correlation, and (iii) barrier identification.

In order to extract different scales and dimensions related to the influences, inter-relationships and barriers of the circular economy implementation in the existing building sectors (e.g. deep renovation, retrofit, energy harvesting, energy independence, etc.), open-ended questions have been established and divided into 3 main themes:

influence among stakeholders: this aspect is critical to understand decision making processes, soft and hard power, obligations and incentives that could promote circular economy concepts. This can represent a buttom-up trigger or appeal for competitions and attraction towards circular practices;

inter-relationships among stakeholders: the insights will help to determine the value chain of circular supply chain network, which identifies the dynamics of who, what, when, how and why for any decision towards circular practices to be made.

challenges and obstacles to implement circular economy concepts to existing building stocks: the insignts into these facets are the key enabler for accelerating the adoption of circular practices. There are a number of non-flexible or outdated regulations, risk-averse standardization and specifications, incomplete tools and technologies, and inadequate financial support mechanisms; all of these could discourage the implementation of circular economy concepts.

For each theme, some questions have been defined as shown in Table 2 . The questions are designed to reflect the role and responsibility of associated stakeholders. The questions can introduce a dialogue with each participating interviewee from each European country of focus. Each interview or meeting has been conducted with one stakeholder at a time, in person or via Zoom/Team call, and lasted a minimum of 0.5 h to a maximum of 1.5 h. Semi-structured interviews have been conducted with different stakeholders of the existing building value chain from five countries. The interviews consist of open-ended questions related to the themes. The sequence of questions and the style of conversation can change with the responders, to create a safe and confidential environment of knowledge exchange and to capture the viewpoints raised by the interviewees.

The responders are chosen through a sample of respondents selected by the authors and based on their knowledge and expertise of topic under investigation. Through snowball sampling method, the aim of selections is to identify the best representative stakeholders of public and private sectors currently involved and interested in circular economy. The responders selected have already relevant experiences for example, ‘Smart Campus’ in the UK. On this ground, the snowball sampling is suitable for this study. In fact, the random sampling of respondents is not suitable for this study since the knowledge of argument is not diffuse across all stakeholders. The randomization could actually cause bias and may fail to highlight virtous paths and critical burdens to be overcome.

In this study, totally 65 stakeholders (FI: 6; DE: 9; LV: 6; TR: 35; UK: 9) were available for an interview (nearly all stakeholders were contacted and interviewed either in person or virtually, or approximately 95% success rate). The number of stakeholders is enough to involve all key players across six countries. Anonymity has always been ensured to all respondents to create safe, fair and inclusive environment. Each stakeholder received an interview guide and one of the authors would conduct all the interviews.

Cross-comparison analysis

To analyse the data collected from the interviews, a cross comparison analysis has been investigated. Cross country comparisons make it possible to obtain insight across multi-national scopes and scales. To conduct the cross comparison analysis, the interview data has been rearranged to form a matri of influence vs stakeholder inter-relationship. The analysis of matrix will help assess the policy impacts and incentives for circular economy practices. The application level is represented by the number of boxes ticked as shown in the cross comparison diagrams (see Fig.  6 ): 4–5 boxes indicate the highest/maximum level of application or influence; 2–3 boxes represent a medium level; and one box reveals the lowest or minimal level of application or influence; and no box ticked indicates ‘not yet applied’.

Example of qualitative methodology for cross comparison analysis.

Results and discussion

Influence among stakeholders.

A primary topic related to circular stakeholder engagement is the influence among stakeholders involved in circular practices for existing building stocks. Derived from the extensive expert and stakeholder interviews, Fig. 7 illustrates the influences among stakeholders perceived by circular economy practitioners. Based on Fig. 7 , the influences among stakeholders can vary from country to another. Based on over 60% of significance scale, the top three most influencers are (i) central government and European union, (ii) asset owners and managers; and (iii) financial institutions and investors. Most experts and stakeholders have pointed out that these influencers play a key role in circular economy implementation, which were fully agreed during the interviews. It is noted that the central government and European authority have a role to play to influence the public on this aspect. They can devise inventives, legislations, enforcements, and penalties that strongly guide the decisions of other key actors or agents (e.g. asset owners, investors, business) to implement circular practices.

Cross comparison of circular economy stakeholders’s influences.

It is also interesting to observe that the influences from social medias, third parties, neighbourhoods, local communities, scientific research and educational institutions are not very pronounced. Despite the strong presence of climate emergency on social media, televised broadcasting, documentaries and online plaforms, the actions to reduce global warming to meet Paris Agreement are unsuccessful. This is evident by science-based targets where merely 20% of global businesses support the action towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emission. In addition, some experts and key stakeholders clearly pointed out during the interviews that the access to relevant research and education is relatively poor in many counties. Research outcomes, convinceable insights and key outputs cannot be accessed by the decision makers such as asset owners or asset managers. Such the lacking was stressed by home owners and various actors though circular economy supply chains. At the same time, there has not been any peer pressure nor peer aspiration within or by local communities and neighborhoods to implement circular economy concepts to existing buildings. In addition, they would need to carry out due diligence prior to consider random social media posts/blogs. These have been some of the concerns resulting in the weak influences from these actors.

Inter-relationship among stakeholders

Figure  8 demonstrates the inter-relationships among stakeholders synthetized from the expert and stakeholder interviews. This aspect is relatively complex since stakeholders are interconnected and influenced. Experts’ opinions are analysed and reaffirmed to identify the connections between stakeholders involved in their practices. Based on Fig. 8 , the inter-relationships among stakeholders are pronourced differently from a country to another. It is clear that the high degree of inter-relationships (above 50% of significance scale) are formed through value chain and industry network in the non-residential building sector. This is because each stakeholder does not often connect with the other stakeholders outside their own supply chain network due to their time contraint. The implementation of circular economy practices tend to be a top-down inter-relationship rather than bottom-up approach. This is because the key influence is often by the governmental policies and legislation. The communications tend to be direct down from the top layer of value chain network. A few home owners highlighted the key insights that there is a lack of financial support and inter-relationship across the value chain, making it difficult to pursure the renovation or to retrofit their aging homes. Based on the stakeholder interviews, most home owners often focus on the upgrade or renovation of their aging homes to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy costs. They often discussed with local contractors and after a few round of discussions about circular economy techniques or methods (e.g. solar panels, thermal insulation components, waste management, wall or roof retrofit, façade renovation, etc.) and associated costs, they often discontinued the plan to upgrade their homes. This was mainingly due to the financial constraints and the perceived low value for money.

Cross comparison of circular economy stakeholders’ inter-relationships.

It is also important to point out that various asset owners and investors still have some concerns about the quality of parts, products, and components made from either wastes or recycled materials. Such the concerns have not been well addressed by the inter-relatonships among value-chain stakeholders and industry or professional networks. The experts pointed out that there were not many customers who wish to use second-handed or reclaimed components or products, which might increase depreciation and potentially reduce the life span & future value of their assets. In addition, the community of practices, professional associations and social medias do not gain sufficient ‘market pull’ that can build inter-relationships and sufficiently convince asset owners and key decision makers to adopt CE strategies and tools such as lifecycle perspectives, recycled products, green quality certification, and so on. Based on the expert and stakeholder interviews, there is infufficient market place or exchange platform for recycled or reclaimed materials, components, and/or products. This was due to the lack of standardization for certification, incentives, and accounting tools to record and report the circular practices and their costs/benefits.

Challenges and obstacles to implement circular economy concepts to existing building stocks

Figure  9 provides the significance of challenges and obstacles to implement circular practices to existing building stocks faced by industry practitioners. By delving into the expert and stakeholder interviews, the most critical challenges and obstacles faced by asset owners, decision makers, and other key stakeholders include: (i) financial burden; (ii) resource constraints; (iii) governmental support and enforcement; and (iv) technical challenges. Various experts and stakeholders have stressed the importance of knowledge sharing and educational programs with respect to circular economy and sustainability, which can alleviate the challenges and eliminate some concerns that decelerate the adoption of CE practices. They addressed further that new economic activities (e.g. second-handed material exchange platform) could be incubated from further circularity awareness and knowledge dissemination. In addition, asset owners and investors suggested that financial incentives together with clear and committed governmental policies and enforcement be enacted to mitigate inherit barriers to implement circular economy practices. Certain valorisation value and virtuous circle systems such as carbon credit, carbon tax, auditing system, digitisaiton, BIM, etc. will be highly instrumental to the successful pathway to transition to net zero.

Cross comparison of challenges and obstacles to implement circular economy practices faced by stakeholders (con’t.).

Conclusions

Buildings account for around 39% of global carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, buildings consume around 40% of all the energy produced, cause over 35% of the EU's total waste generation; and account for about 50% of all extracted (fossil) materials. Based on this statistics that the building industry is a key sector required to be revolutionized to meet national and international net zero targets. Recently, CircularB Project funded by European Cooperation for Science and Technology (COST) has been devoted to co-create synergies of digital transformation solutions, data-driven & complexity science and technical capabilities towards achievable, affordable and marketable circular buildings and potentially enabling further circular economy solutions for both new and existing buildings. However, it is clear that technical solutions alone cannot resolve the global issues. This paper delves into socio-technical investigations to derive new insights into the stakeholders’ influences, inter-relationships, and obstacles in the implementation of circular economy concepts on existing building stocks. It is important to note that, based on EU database, existing building stocks represent over 90% of whole building assets. This outcome of this study will therefore help put the circular economy agenda on the fast track to net zero transition. A robust critical literature review of key documentations such as articles, standards, policy reports, strategic roadmaps, and white papers has been conducted. The key stakeholders of existing building stocks at different stages of lifecycle can then be identified. It is also clear that there has not been any research devoted to this particular aspect in depth. Our extensive expert interviews with relevant stakeholders and decision makers draw new insights across all scales of circular economy implementation, including:

With over 60% of significance, the top three most influencers include (i) central government and European union, (ii) asset owners and managers; and (iii) financial institutions and investors.

The top influencers can significantly guide the decision towards the circular economy implementation.

The high degree of inter-relationships among stakeholders are built through value chain and industry network.

The top-down inter-relationship plays a key role in the implementation of circular economy practices.

The most critical challenges and obstacles in the implementation of circular economy include: (i) financial burden; (ii) resource constraints; (iii) governmental support and enforcement; and (iv) technical challenges.

Our new research findings demonstrate the essential need for harmonized actions and tactical/pragmatic policies promoted and regulated by the European Commission, national and local governments who can dominate the influence, promote inter-relationship, and overcome the barriers towards circular economy much more effectively. The financial incentives and governmental enforcement (via policy, legislation, or directive) are reported to be the most critical obstacles that required an urgent need for consideration. Open-access knowledge sharing and educational programs will be instrumental to accelerate the adoption of circular economy practices in the existing building sector.

Data availability

Informed consent was obtained from all respondents. There is no experiment involving human participants. Data available on request to the corresponding author.

D’Agostino, D., Zangheri, P. & Castellazzi, L. Towards nearly zero energy buildings in Europe: A focus on retrofit in non-residential buildings. Energies 10 , 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10010117 (2017).

Article   Google Scholar  

Kaewunruen, S., Sussman, J. M. & Matsumoto, A. Grand challenges in transportation and transit systems. Front. Built Environ. 2 , 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2016.00004 (2016).

Kaewunruen, S., Sresakoolchai, J. & Kerinnonta, L. Potential reconstruction design of an existing townhouse in Washington DC for approaching net zero energy building goal. Sustainability 11 , 6631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236631 (2019).

European Commission. A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe, Access Online URL (2020). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2020:98:FIN&WT.mc_id=Twitter .

Economidou, M. et al. Review of 50 years of EU energy efficiency policies for buildings. Energy Build. 225 , 110322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110322 (2020).

Zero Carbon Hub. Access Online: (2023). https://www.zerocarbonhub.org/sites/default/files/resources/reports/ZCHomes_Nearly_Zero_Energy_Buildings.pdf .

European Commission. Access Online: (2023). https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-buildings/energy-performance-buildings-directive_en .

Interreg Europe. Access Online: (2023). https://www.interregeurope.eu/shrec/news/news-article/10397/renovation-wave-strategy-targets-european-buildings .

Kaewunruen, S., Rungskunroch, P. & Welsh, J. A digital-twin evaluation of net zero energy building for existing buildings. Sustainability 11 , 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010159 (2019).

Kaewunruen, S., Peng, S. & Phil-Ebosie, O. Digital twin aided sustainability and vulnerability audit for subway stations. Sustainability 12 , 7873. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197873 (2020).

Tsoka, S., Theodosiou, T., Papadopoulou, K. & Tsikaloudaki, K. Assessing the energy performance of prefabricated buildings considering different wall configurations and the use of PCMs in Greece. Energies 13 , 5026. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13195026 (2020).

Magrini, A., Lentini, G., Cuman, S., Bodrato, A. & Marenco, L. From nearly zero energy buildings (NZEB) to positive energy buildings (PEB): The next challenge—The most recent European trends with some notes on the energy analysis of a forerunner PEB example. Dev. Built Environ. 3 , 100019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2020.100019 (2020).

Kolokotsa, D., Rovas, D., Kosmatopoulos, E. & Kalaitzakis, K. A roadmap towards intelligent net zero- and positive-energy buildings. Sol. Energy 85 (12), 3067–3084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2010.09.001 (2011).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Castellazi, L., Bertoldi, P., Economidou, M., JRC Technical Reports: Overcoming the split incentive barrier in the building sector. Access Online: (2017). https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC101251/ldna28058enn.pdf .

American Council for Energy Efficiency Economy. Energy Efficiency Impact Report Access Online: (2023). https://energyefficiencyimpact.org/co-benefits-with-energy-savings/ .

Interreg Europe. Access Online: (2023). https://www.interregeurope.eu/shrec/news/news-article/10397/renovation-wave-strategy-targets-european-buildings/ .

Terés-Zubiaga, J. et al. Cost-effective building renovation at district level combining energy efficiency & renewables—Methodology assessment proposed in IEA EBC Annex 75 and a demonstration case study. Energy Build. 224 , 110280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110280 (2020).

Barbosa, R., Almeida, M., Briones-Llorente, R. & Mateus, R. Environmental performance of a cost-effective energy renovation at the neighbourhood scale—The case for social housing in Braga, Portugal. Sustainability 2022 , 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14041947 (1947).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

European Commisison. Access Online: (2023). https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/markets-and-consumers/energy-consumer-rights/protecting-energy-consumers/national-regulatory-authorities_en .

European Commisison. Access Online: (2023). http://ec.europa.eu/easme/sites/easme-site/files/practical_approaches_to_the_buildings_renov_challenge.pdf .

Kaewunruen, S., Guo, Y., Jing, G. & Matsumoto, A. Circular economy implementation in railway systems beyond net zero. Front. Built. Environ. 9 , 1239740. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1239740 (2023).

Giorgi, S. et al. Drivers and barriers towards circular economy in the building sector: Stakeholder interviews and analysis of five European countries policies and practices. J. Clean. Prod. 336 , 130395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130395 (2022).

Kaewunruen, S., Sussman, J. M. & Einstein, H. H. Strategic framework to achieve carbon-efficient construction and maintenance of railway infrastructure systems. Front. Environ. Sci. 3 , 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00006 (2015).

Kaewunruen, S., Sresakoolchai, J. & Yu, S. Global warming potentials due to railway tunnel construction and maintenance. Appl. Sci. 10 , 6459. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10186459 (2020).

Kaewunruen, S. & Liao, P. Sustainability and recyclability of composite materials for railway turnout systems. J. Clean. Prod. 285 , 124890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124890 (2021).

Amini Toosi, H., Del Pero, C., Leonforte, F., Lavagna, M. & Aste, N. Machine learning for performance prediction in smart buildings: Photovoltaic self-consumption and life cycle cost optimization. Appl. Energy. 334 , 120648 (2023).

Sresakoolchai, J. & Kaewunruen, S. Interactive reinforcement learning innovation to reduce carbon emissions in railway infrastructure maintenance. Dev. Built Environ. 15 , 100193 (2023).

International Energy Agency. Cost-Effective Energy and Carbon Emissions Optimization in Building Renovation (Annex 56), Access Online: (2023). https://www.iea-ebc.org .

Rose, J., Thomsen, K. E., Domingo-Irigoyen, S., Monge-Barrio, A. & Hidalgo-Betanzos, J. M. Building renovation at district level—Lessons learned from international case studies. Sustain. Cities Soc. 72 , 103037 (2021).

McKinsey. The Net Zero Challenge, Access Online: (2023). https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-challenge-accelerating-decarbonization-worldwide .

European Commisison, A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and more competitive Europe. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1583933814386&uri=COM:2020:98:FIN (accessed 30 Aug 2023).

Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, Technical Assistance for Assessment of Türkiye’s Potential on Transition to Circular Economy, Report for Contract No EuropeAid/140562/IH/SER/TR. Ankara, Turkiye (2020).

European Commision, Circular economy: definition, importance and benefits. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/circular-economy-definition-importance-and-benefits#:~:text=The%20circular%20economy%20is%20a,cycle%20of%20products%20is%20extended . (accessed 1 Sep 2023).

Institution of Structural Engineer, Circular economy and reuse: guidance for designers. https://www.istructe.org/resources/guidance/circular-economy/ (accessed 1 Sep 2023).

Barros, et al. Circular economy as a driver to sustainable businesses. Clean. Environ. Syst. 2 , 100006 (2021).

Bai, et al. Analyzing the interactions among the challenges to circular economy practices. IEEE Access https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3074931 (2021).

Hina, B. et al. Drivers and barriers of circular economy business models: Where we are now, and where we are heading. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130049 (2021).

Holly, F. et al. Challenges on a way to a circular economy from the perspective of the Austrian manufacturing industry. (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1243374

Mason. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Grafstrom and Aasma (2021) (2010).

Marshall, B. et al. Does sample size matter in qualitative research? A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 54 (1), 11–22 (2013).

Google Scholar  

Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N. & Marconi, V. C. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough?. Qual. Health Res. 27 (4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344 (2017).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mason, M. Sample size and saturation in PhD Studies using qualitative interviews. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research , vol. 11(3).

Eurostat. EU’s Circular material use rate decreased in 2021 (2022). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20221213-1 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge all experts, interviewees, and responders, who kindly provided time and effort for the completion of this study. This article is based upon work from COST Action (CircularB—Implementation of Circular Economy in the Built Environment., CA21103), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). The APC is kindly sponsored by University of Birmingham Library’s Open Access Fund.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

Sakdirat Kaewunruen

SRH Berlin School of Technology, Ernst-Reuter-Platz 10, 10587, Berlin, Germany

Patrick Teuffel

Department of Forest Industry Engineering Faculty of Forestry, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080, Trabzon, Turkey

Ayfer Donmez Cavdar

Avoin Association, Helsinki, Finland

BALTECH Study Centre, Faculty of Engineering Economics and Management, Riga Technical University, Kipsalas Street 6A, Riga, 1048, Latvia

Tatjana Tambovceva

Institute of Materials and Structures, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Riga Technical University, Kipsalas Street 6A, Riga, 1048, Latvia

Diana Bajare

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, S.K., P.T.; A.D.C.., O.V., T.T. and D.B.; methodology, S.K., P.T.; A.D.C.., O.V., T.T. and D.B.; software, S.K.; validation, S.K. and D.B..; formal analysis, S.K., A.D.C., and D.B.; investigation, S.K., P.T.; A.D.C., O.V., T.T. and D.B.; resources, S.K., D.B..; data curation, S.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.K., A.D.C., T.T..and D.B.; writing—review and editing, S.K., A.D.C., and D.B.; visualization, S.K.; project administration, S.K. and D.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sakdirat Kaewunruen .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kaewunruen, S., Teuffel, P., Donmez Cavdar, A. et al. Comparisons of stakeholders' influences, inter-relationships, and obstacles for circular economy implementation on existing building sectors. Sci Rep 14 , 11046 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-61863-0

Download citation

Received : 31 October 2023

Accepted : 10 May 2024

Published : 14 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-61863-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Circular economy
• Stakeholder engagement
• Stakeholder influence
• Interrelationship
• Circular buildings
• Circular materials
• Sustainable assessment
• Business models
• Life cycle perspective

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Green Chemistry

Biomass derived sulfonated carbon catalysts: efficient catalysts for green chemistry.

* Corresponding authors

a School of Engineering, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing 210009, China E-mail: [email protected]

Biomass-derived sulfonated carbon catalysts (BDSCCs), recognized for their environmentally friendly origin, uncomplicated synthesis, and outstanding performance as solid acids, have garnered increasing attention due to their relevance in the context of green chemistry. This article offers an examination of the diverse raw material sources of BDSCCs, delves into the performance distinctions and potential rationales among various BDSCCs, extensively investigates their utilization across multiple sectors like biodiesel production and lignocellulose saccharification in recent years, and delineates the challenges that BDSCCs are poised to encounter in the future. As BDSCCs evolve in terms of selectivity, stability, recyclability, and catalytic sustainability, they hold the promise of achieving zero-waste production across multiple industries. In conclusion, this review not only provides insights into the current state of biomass-derived sulfonated carbon catalysts but also outlines a path for their future development. It is anticipated that this field will play a pivotal role in advancing green catalysis and contributing to the principles of the circular economy.

• This article is part of the themed collection: 2024 Green Chemistry Reviews

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

S. Zhu, J. Ke, X. Li, Z. Zheng, R. Guo and J. Chen, Green Chem. , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D4GC00113C

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements

Business Models in Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review

• Conference paper
• First Online: 31 August 2021
• Cite this conference paper

• Beatrice Colombo 20 , 21 ,
• Paolo Gaiardelli 20 ,
• Stefano Dotti 20 &
• Albachiara Boffelli 20  

Part of the book series: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology ((IFIPAICT,volume 632))

Included in the following conference series:

• IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems

3229 Accesses

2 Citations

Scientific literature lacks a comprehensive and extensive overview of business models built upon circular economy principles. Based on this premise, this paper performs a systematic literature review, through which it aims at identifying and then categorizing circular business models processed in the literature to date. Fifteen circular business models are identified and analysed. The results show that circular business models can be associated with different circular strategies, but that some are more studied than others. The research also indicates that each circular business model can be associated with one particular life cycle stage of a product-service, thus making it more suitable for a specific circular strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Archetypes of Business Models for Circular Economy: A Classification Approach and Value Perspective

Toward the Circular Economy: An Initial Analysis Framework

Business Models for a Circular Economy: A Literature Review with Bibliometric and Topic Analysis

Chesbrough, H.: Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range Plann. 43 , 354–363 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.010

Article   Google Scholar  

Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K., Rangaswami, M.R.: Sustainability is the key driver of innovation. Harv. Bus. Rev. 87 , 56–64 (2009)

Google Scholar  

Ferronato, N., Rada, E.C., Gorritty Portillo, M.A., Cioca, L.I., Ragazzi, M., Torretta, V.: Introduction of the circular economy within developing regions: a comparative analysis of advantages and opportunities for waste valorization. J. Environ. Manag. 230 , 366–378 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.095

Rizos, V., Behrens, A., Kafyeke, T., Hirschnitz-Garbera, M., Ioannou, A.: The Circular Economy: Barriers and Opportunities for SMEs. CEPS Working Documents No. 412/September 2015. CEPS Work. Docucemnts (2015)

Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., Evans, S.: Sustainable business model innovation: a review (2018)

Kirchherr, J., et al.: Barriers to the circular economy: evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecol. Econ. 150 , 264–272 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.028

Merli, R., Preziosi, M., Acampora, A.: How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. J. Cleaner Prod. 178 , 703–722 (2018)

Goodwill, G.M., Geddes, J.R.: Introduction to systematic reviews (2004). http://journals.sagepub.com , https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881104042629

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P.: Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 14 , 207–222 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Guldmann, E., Huulgaard, R.D.: Barriers to circular business model innovation: a multiple-case study. J. Clean. Prod. 243 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118160

Pieroni, M.P.P., McAloone, T.C., Pigosso, D.C.A.: From theory to practice: systematising and testing business model archetypes for circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 162 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105029

Bocken, N.M.P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., van der Grinten, B.: Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 33 , 308–320 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124

Geissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S.N., de Carvalho, M.M., Evans, S.: Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 190 , 712–721 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.159

Lüdeke-Freund, F., Gold, S., Bocken, N.M.P.: A review and typology of circular economy business model patterns. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 , 36–61 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12763

Ünal, E., Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D.: Managerial practices for designing circular economy business models: the case of an Italian SME in the office supply industry. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 30 , 561–589 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-02-2018-0061

Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C., Terzi, S.: Circular economy in action: Uncovering the relation between circular business models and their expected benefits. In: Proceedings of the Summer School Francesco Turco. pp. 228–235 (2018)

Fraccascia, L., Magno, M., Albino, V.: Business models for industrial symbiosis: a guide for firms. Procedia Environ. Sci. Eng. Manag. 3 , 83–93 (2016)

Salvador, R., Barros, M.V., da Luz, L.M., Piekarski, C.M., de Francisco, A.C.: Circular business models: current aspects that influence implementation and unaddressed subjects (2020)

Marke, A., Chan, C., Taskin, G., Hacking, T.: Reducing e-waste in China’s mobile electronics industry: the application of the innovative circular business models. Asian Educ. Dev. Stud. 9 , 591–610 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-03-2019-0052

Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S.: A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 114 , 11–32 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007

Henry, M., Bauwens, T., Hekkert, M., Kirchherr, J.: A typology of circular start-ups: analysis of 128 circular business models. J. Clean. Prod. 245 , 118528 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118528

Singh, J., Cooper, T., Cole, C., Gnanapragasam, A., Shapley, M.: Evaluating approaches to resource management in consumer product sectors - an overview of global practices. J. Clean. Prod. 224 , 218–237 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.203

Planing, P.: Towards a circular economy – how business model innovation will help to make the shift. Int. J. Bus. Glob. 20 , 71–83 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBG.2018.10009522

Lewandowski, M.: Designing the business models for circular economy-towards the conceptual framework. Sustain. 8 , 1–28 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010043

Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V.: Towards a new taxonomy of circular economy business models. J. Clean. Prod. 168 , 487–498 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.047

Widmer, T., Tjahjono, B., Bourlakis, M.: Defining value creation in the context of circular PSS. Procedia CIRP 73 , 142–147 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.329

Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W.: Towards a sufficiency-driven business model: experiences and opportunities. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 18 , 41–61 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.010

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management, Information and Production Engineering, University of Bergamo, Dalmine, Italy

Beatrice Colombo, Paolo Gaiardelli, Stefano Dotti & Albachiara Boffelli

ENEA - Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Division for Sustainable Materials, Brindisi Research Centre, Brindisi, Italy

Beatrice Colombo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beatrice Colombo .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

IMT Atlantique, Nantes, France

Alexandre Dolgui

Centrale Nantes, Nantes, France

Alain Bernard

David Lemoine

ZF Friedrichshafen AG, Friedrichshafen, Germany

Gregor von Cieminski

Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico City, Mexico

David Romero

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Colombo, B., Gaiardelli, P., Dotti, S., Boffelli, A. (2021). Business Models in Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review. In: Dolgui, A., Bernard, A., Lemoine, D., von Cieminski, G., Romero, D. (eds) Advances in Production Management Systems. Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable and Resilient Production Systems. APMS 2021. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 632. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85906-0_43

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85906-0_43

Published : 31 August 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-85905-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-85906-0

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

• Find a journal
• Track your research