Next Article in Journal
Technological Innovation, Risk-Taking and Firm Performance—Empirical Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies
Previous Article in Journal
Globalization and Sustainable Development: Empirical Evidence from CIS Countries
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 22
10.3390/su142214682
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Circular Economy: Approaches and Perspectives of a Variable with a Growing Trend in the Scientific World—A Systematic Review of the Last 5 Years

by
Jorge Alberto Vargas-Merino
1,*,
Cristian Armando Rios-Lama
2 and
Miguel Humberto Panez-Bendezú
3
1
Faculty of Business, School of Management, Universidad Privada del Norte, San Juan de Lurigancho, Lima 15434, Peru
2
Faculty of Business, School of Marketing and Management, Universidad César Vallejo, Los Olivos 15314, Peru
3
Department of Research, Innovation and Social Responsibility, Universidad Privada del Norte, Breña 15083, Peru
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 14682; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214682
Submission received: 3 September 2022 / Revised: 17 October 2022 / Accepted: 1 November 2022 / Published: 8 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The circular economy has become a topic of increasing relevance in the scientific field, and the literature on it has developed considerably in recent years. Therefore, a review is needed to contribute to the understanding of this term, which is under constant debate. This article aims to analyze scientific articles from qualitative and quantitative research approaches on the circular economy. The methodology used was a systematic review of scientific literature from Scopus and Web of Science; 67 scientific articles were systematized under inclusion and exclusion criteria related to the specific objectives sought. The results showed that there is still a long way to go in developing a theoretical framework that can be put into practice due to the divergence of existing perspectives or approaches, although its application to different fields of study is being considered. Likewise, its complex character is highlighted, while driving or limiting factors are observed. This research provides a theoretical contribution aimed at elucidating which implications of the circular economy need to be addressed in order to build a universal or flexible theory to understand what it means to plan for the implementation of the circular economy. In this way, it hopes to strengthen its practical application, which implies the need to create an overarching framework that can be adapted to different contexts and provide clear guidance on how to be part of the circular economy.

1. Introduction

Over time, concepts such as greening or green economy have been gaining relevance due to the environmental situation of the planet [1]. From the extensive literature on systems ecology, developed in the 1960s and 1970s, various disciplines and concepts emerged to reduce the extraction of natural resources and the generation of waste, aspects that would later be combined in what we know today as the “circular economy” [2].
In recent years, the circular economy (CE) has become the focus of discussions aimed at a guided transition toward environmental sustainability [3]. While there are various definitions of CE [4], there is no definite concept that is widely accepted; still, it can be said to be an umbrella term for the pursuit of sustainability [5,6], waste and resource management [7], eco-innovation [8], human development [9] and consumer behavior [10]. In concrete terms, the concept of the circular economy could be understood as being based on the minimization of productive defects, in order to extend the shelf life of resources and products, while ensuring the regeneration of natural systems [11].
Likewise, the difficulty in finding a consensus on the theory of the circular economy [12,13,14,15], the need to understand its implicit factors [16], its practical implementation in initial stages [17,18] and its complex direct relationship with the business section [19], highlight the need to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the circular economy. Therefore, it is necessary to synthesize information that facilitates both knowledge development and possible fields of study of circular economy, hence the development of a systematic review is advised [20].
In addition, this paper is motivated by: the theoretical complexity of the circular economy inherent in its diverse multidisciplinary and practical perspectives [21], the lack of formal theoretical consolidation [22] and the long literature gap due to its novelty [23,24]. It also considers the overexploitation of the term by various social actors, which weakens or underestimates its understanding [22]; the lack of theoretical clarity on the boundaries of the circular economy and sustainability [6] or sustainable development [25]; the need to identify which aspects favor (enablers) or hinder (barriers) the circular economy [26,27]; the lack of understanding of the social dimension in the circular economy [6,28,29,30,31]; the need to facilitate knowledge in research linked to the implementation of the circular economy [24,32,33] and the need to update or reaffirm literature on the topic in question, thinking about the possible changes as a result of contemplating various technologies [24,30,34,35,36,37] and the COVID-19 pandemic [24,38,39,40].
Given the above, this review is developed under the following premise:
  • What is known about the circular economy, considering its approaches and perspectives in the last 5 years?
In order to answer this question, this paper aimed to analyze scientific articles on qualitative and quantitative paradigms of the circular economy, considering their approaches and perspectives. To achieve this macro-objective, the understanding of the circular economy in the year 2022, the understanding of its main difficulties and complexities, as well as the factors acting as enablers, barriers, or limitations, were investigated.
This article is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the methodology used, Section 3 presents the results through descriptive graphs, and develops the discussion, where the information collected is analyzed and synthesized. Finally, Section 4 presents the conclusions of the study, which includes providing new research perspectives and explaining the limitations of this study.

2. Materials and Methods

To achieve the objective of this document, a systematic literature review was conducted. According to Mallet et al. [41], systematic reviews are a structured analysis of documents, where qualitative and quantitative scientific evidence is identified, synthesized, and evaluated to coherently and concisely answer the research question. This methodology is used for its ability to: consolidate results from different studies on a given topic, provide a better understanding of the variable, foster conceptual or theoretical development [42], synthesize a wealth of scientific literature [43], and suggest or provide methods or new areas of research [44]. Following the recommendations of [45], the study is developed in 3 stages: (1) planning the research, (2) conducting it, and (3) discussing and presenting the findings, as well as making transparent the search methods and providing a guide for readers to ensure replicability and scientific rigor. As can be seen in Figure 1, initially, a general search for the keyword "Circular Economy" was carried out in Scopus (15,172) and Web of Science (11,653). These scientific databases were considered because of their breadth and prestige [46].

Selection of Articles

In the last 5 years, the keyword “Circular Economy” recognizes more than 14,000 scientific articles in SCOPUS (See Figure 2) and about 12100 of them in Web of Science (See Figure 3), both with an increasing trend. In the previous years, the mentioned scientific databases recognized about 2100 articles (2001–2017) and more than 800 (2010–2017), respectively. Therefore, following a preliminary investigation [45], we chose to focus on the last 5 years (2018–2022) due to the need to cover the largest amount of current or updated scientific literature, also considering previously mentioned aspects such as technological changes and the pandemic.
To address the different perspectives to be developed in the subtitles of this research, various inclusion and exclusion criteria were used in each subtitle (See Appendix A) to delimit which types of articles favor the achievement of this research [45]. The main search strategies were: “Circular Economy”; “Circular Economy” AND “goal” OR “dimension” OR “concept” OR “principle” OR “design” OR “framework” OR “theory”; “Circular Economy” AND “limitation” OR “enabler” OR “driver” OR “barrier”. Subsequently, a title & abstract screening (326) was performed to determine relevant articles for the research [47], after which a complete review of the scientific papers was carried out, prioritizing articles from indexed journals belonging to the best quartiles, to ensure the quality of the publications. When selecting the final articles, aspects such as redundancy and suitability regarding the research objectives were evaluated [48], resulting in 67 scientific articles.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Results

The research covered the period 2018–2022 (See Appendix A), due to the growing trend of the topic studied. It is noteworthy that from 2020 to 2022, there has been a massive growth of scientific articles related to CE, specifically the keyword “Circular Economy”, showing the need to compile, contrast and classify such scientific production.
To review the current knowledge, priority was given to the inclusion of articles reflecting the current, newest (See Figure 4), state of CE, i.e., articles showing the theoretical and practical shortcomings of CE in its current conception, as well as how the concept is being developed in different disciplines, were considered.
Table 1 shows that the United Kingdom is the country that has contributed the largest number of articles to this review with 14, followed by Italy with 10, India with 7, Denmark with 6, Spain and Portugal with 5, as well as China, France, Brazil, and Australia with 4.
As it can be seen in Table 2, the 5 scientific journals that contributed the most to the development of this review were: the Journal of Cleaner of Production (27), Business Strategy and the Environment (8), Sustainability (6), Journal of Business Research (4), and Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (2). The SJR (Scimago Journal Rank) and JIF (Journal Impact Factor) of SCOPUS and Web of Science, respectively, are also shown, both of which are indicators that show the prestige and/or impact of a scientific journal.
Figure 5 shows 67 scientific articles were selected through 3 main searches (See Appendix A). Out of these, 17 were included in the first subtitle, 27 in the second subtitle, and 23 in the last one.
As it can be seen in Table 3, the predominant methodology in the articles cited is qualitative, with 43 of the 67 articles collected belonging to this category. It should be noted that case studies, semi-structured interviews, and document reviews are the most commonly used methodologies.

3.2. Circular Economy: State of the Art

The increase in the world population and its subsequent consumption has increased various types of waste and the depletion of natural resources. This scenario has caused a concept such as sustainability, a complex term susceptible to cultural and environmental variations, to gain greater relevance in recent decades, even though it does not cover how to achieve a development that goes hand-in-hand with nature [49].
In 2020, the European Union established the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) as the healthiest way to outline sustainability through respect and responsibility within the environment and society [5]. This indicates the possibility of inferring that the circular economy emerges as an economic model which can generate value at different stages of production and consumption [17,50], developing principles of redesign, remanufacturing, valorizing natural waste, reuse, and policies that encourage its implementation to stakeholders. In addition, there are environmental benefits, and the fact that the circular economy enables the creation of business opportunities, benefiting the economy as a whole highlighting the fact that the circular economy is a real means for companies to operationally implement sustainable development [6].
Similarly, [48], citing [17], mentions that the core idea of the circular economy envisages a shift from economic systems that are based on linear processes from resources to goods and waste, to systems that reuse, remanufacture and recycle materials. It is possible to develop this concept at different levels, i.e., at the micro level, it comprises products, companies, and consumers; at the meso level, eco-industrial parks; and at the macro level, a city, region, nation, or more [51]. The development of this economy makes it possible to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, which implies creating environmental quality, economic prosperity, and social equity for current and future generations.
Despite such benefits, the successful implementation of the circular economy represents a comprehensive challenge that cannot yet be achieved, as it requires systemic and radical changes in production and consumption systems [48], in particular, it requires products that are made to be recycled and reused from their birth. Technology is also a vital requirement, and although it may currently represent a major investment, and thus a barrier, it is expected to be the key building block towards the circular economy in the future [5,48]. Suchek et al. [52] add that such systemic change needed to implement the circular economy should aim to reduce the impact of the linear economy, as well as allow the establishment of economic and business opportunities, while providing social and environmental benefits.
While the growing importance of the circular economy is visualized by knowing its potential practical application, the term under discussion has been consistently addressed by the scientific community [39]. As the concept of the circular economy does not have a unique definition, it is based on a collection of biases from different areas of study, such as environmental engineering, business, and environmental sciences, among others [23,31].
Since 2016, there have been several systematic research studies focused on the analysis of different definitions of the circular economy [53,54,55], referring to [4], express how more than 110 definitions of the circular economy have been identified through scientific articles, reports and governmental documents. In this study, it is possible to identify that the most used definition visualizes the circular economy as an industrial system focused on restoration and regeneration from its conception, replacing the classic “end-of-life” vision with a position linked to renewable energies. To be precise, based on the aforementioned authors, the circular economy is conceptualized as a system that encompasses the change of business models, leaving aside the concept of linear economy through recycling, reuse and renewal.
The concept of circular economy has been considered in different fields for its capacity to promote sustainable and efficient policies in terms of resource management, which support the achievement of environmental and socioeconomic welfare [56]. Among these fields may be found the eventual creation and implementation of a circular model comprising the repair, reuse and renewal of electric vehicles [57]; the management of plastic waste, understanding that 79% of the plastics produced are found in landfills or in the environment, and barely 9% are recycled [58]; the impact of the circular economy on the food supply chain, considering the importance of reducing such waste due to the need to contribute to the elimination of world hunger and the efficient management of wasted resources in the food industry 56; the recycling of organic waste, integrating biomass as a circular energy source that can replace fossil energy [59]; the recycling of rare earths, elements whose importance lies in the fact of being the raw material for a wide variety of technological instruments [60]; or the implementation of a waste management program, both in the construction sector [61] and in the electronics sector [62].

3.3. Complexity of the Circular Economy Variable: Conceptualizations and Implications with the SDGs

The multi-focused concept of CE [63], is divided into 3 basic dimensions that may be benefited: social, economic, and environmental. In other words, it inherently involves organizations in the desired achievement of the triple bottom line and supports the 3 pillars of sustainability [21,25,64,65,66,67]. Due to the exploratory factor analysis conducted by Lehmann et al. [63], 2 underlying independent dimensions of CE were identified: resource efficiency and environmental degradation. It can be said that CE is the key in decoupling economic growth from the excessive use of natural resources [48,68]; being applicable across micro (companies), meso (industrial parks), and macro (city/region/nation) levels [64,69,70].
CE essentially seeks to provide useful actions and practices for the preservation of resources, such as recycling, reconditioning, repair, and eco-design [70,71], creating and developing an industrial scheme focused on restoration since its conception [72]. This would necessarily involve economic reasoning focused on both unlimited economic growth and the reduction of resource consumption and social welfare [73], fully considering a holistic vision that allows the development of its maximum potential [74]. At the business level, the aim is to develop a circular business comprising the maximization of raw materials, production loops, stakeholder organization and collaboration, and circular profit viability [68]. It is estimated that the shift toward the circular paradigm may generate large economic benefits for organizations [75], although in the case of SMEs, it is likely that there will be an adverse effect in the short term [76]. Bibliometric research by Lozano et al. [74] supports this by stating that CE should comprise a holistic collaborative framework, integrating the main dimensions (economic and environmental) of CE.
The CE vision is usually deconstructed through three widely cited and increasingly important principles: to reduce, reuse, and recycle [22,68,69], although there are also postulates that develop 6 R’s, adding Reproduce/Remodel (R4), Redesign (R5), and Recover (R6) to the three previously mentioned, and even more [77]. According to Geisendorf & Pietrulla [26], such principles should be understood as a comprehensive framework and not be seen as a waste management process. Moreover, their application requires such understanding since it is linked to the sector in which it is implemented [78].
The recent events triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic have only reinforced the sustainability and CE outlook [79]. The importance of this concept lies in the fact that, in its implementation, it should contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, taking into account the dimensions previously mentioned [64], being considered, in some cases, as vital to the achievement of the SDGs. [79]. Despite these assertions, CE’s implication for sustainable development is still under debate [80], because there may be a rebound effect when assuming new production technologies [81,82]. Some also allege its apparent bias toward the economic dimension and neglect, to a lesser extent, of the environmental one, and, to a greater extent, of the social one [67]. Others, such [1], referring to [31], consider the circular economy to have virtually no social dimension, as it focuses on redesigning manufacturing systems and services for the benefit of the biosphere (See Figure 6). While improving the management of natural resources represents a good towards humanity, there is no explicit recognition of the social aspects present in sustainable development. In other words, it is not clear how the circular economy leads to greater social equity.
There are certain discrepancies regarding sustainability and CE concepts, highlighting how the social dimension is neglected in CE [25,67]; several scholars consider that the social impact of CE is not fully defined [28], as the implications of implementing the CE in solving social problems such as gender equity, social justice [83] or social inclusion [28], just to mention a few, are not yet known. It should be mentioned that job creation is usually considered a social impact of CE; however, no differences have been pointed out between a CE job and one from the linear economy [28].

3.4. Circular Economy: Limitations or Barriers and Enablers

In recent years, the exploration of existing drivers of and barriers to CE implementation has become increasingly relevant [84]. Migrating toward a sustainable economy inherently requires good environmental management and innovation that facilitates the development of systems thinking which can integrate the benefits of a circular economy into the current outlook [85]. In this regard, it should be mentioned that the literature related to the implementation of the circular economy is very limited [86], as it is not clear which factors contribute to the transition of the CE [87], while there is a lack of standardized metrics in its implementation [88,89], although it is possible to visualize and identify aspects that hinder its application [90,91].
In order to clarify aspects of CE that facilitate its practical application, various authors have identified facilitating and limiting agents of CE, although some are developed in specific contexts [92]. For example, senior management commitment in manufacturing organizations is believed to be the cornerstone of any sustainable migration [93]. The research by Jaeger & Upadhyay [94] points out that in that sector, 7 barriers impede CE: high initial costs, the complexity of supply chains, business cooperation, lack of information in production processes, lack of technical knowledge, quality barriers, and the development of a product disassembly program. It is appropriate to note that some of these difficulties can be easily extrapolated to various fields [95], as in the case of the food, automotive, or agri-food industry, where high initial costs, the complexity of the supply chain, and lack of technical knowledge also represent significant challenges [86,96,97].
In general terms, various drivers could be visualized from different research studies, such as: politics and economy; financial, environmental, health, and social dimensions; and innovation [86]. Similarly, Govindan & Hasanagic [98] point out that politics, economics, health, environmental protection, society, and product development can be drivers of CE. On the other hand, Hina et al. [99] consider that there are internal and external drivers. The former are those at the organizational level and the latter are comprised in the legal framework, public policies, and stakeholders. Chowdhury et al. [100], through their structural equation model, reveal that organizational leadership can be a key factor for CE adoption in emerging economies.
In contrast, there are considerable barriers in CE, such as institutional, economic, regulatory, logistical, infrastructure, operational, and technological risks, knowledge, and skills barriers [86,98,101]. In the research by Mishra [102], seven dimensions were identified: knowledge and skills barriers, technological barriers, cultural barriers, financial barriers, strategic barriers, governmental and regulatory barriers, and market barriers. In the perspective of Münster et al. [103], barriers and drivers have an ambivalent nature, where the cultural aspect (society and attitudes), the market (customers and economy), regulations (legislation), technical knowledge, and the system (the holistic view of the process) can both favor and hinder CE implementation attempts.
In the approach of Hina et al. [99], barriers may be internal or external, where the former are limited to financial, human, or technical resources and characteristics of the organizations themselves; the latter involve agents external to the firm, such as governments or consumers. According to the research by Wang et al. [104], external agents, such as those previously mentioned, and industry leaders are stakeholders that can help to overcome barriers.
Similarly, Neves & Marques [27] emphasize the importance of consumers, especially the younger ones, who, according to their research, are more predisposed to eco-friendly practices. Ali et al. [87] add that women and knowledge of the environment can also contribute to overcoming barriers. Fachbach et al. [105] seem to support this by demonstrating that women are more environmentally aware and more predisposed to use a key factor of the circular economy, i.e., repairing broken or decayed products.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

In order to achieve the objective of this paper, the literature was analyzed under 3 perspectives that were categorized in the sub-themes (See Figure 7): to know the actuality of the broad vision of the circular economy, its conceptual complexity and interaction with sustainability, and which factors could allow or impede its implementation. Initially, the implications of COVID-19 on the implementation of the circular economy are understood. While it is believed that the pandemic has generated a paradigm shift and even, the World Economic Forum proposes, “The Great Reset” as the need to shift towards a sustainable economic vision, it may still be too early to ensure the impact of the pandemic on the formation of new public policies or social change linked to sustainability [38,106].
On the other hand, considering that technology is a requirement to improve the circular economy [48], technological implications were detected in this, where extended reality technologies, blockchain, the internet of things, artificial intelligence or 3D printing [5,48,70] are visualized as possible technological agents of favorable change towards the adoption of the circular economy. For example, artificial intelligence creates algorithms capable of generating systems and models with cognitive learning and development capabilities [51,62], leading to improved design processes for circular products, components and materials. In another example, 3D printing has the capacity to alter the current economy through the value chain [37,48], favoring small-scale local production; similarly, this technology has the means to collect and process plastic waste, so that it is converted into recycled raw material for 3D printing. A final example of technological contribution is seen in extended reality technologies, which offer a glimpse into the future, allowing the implications of a circular system, reducing the use of paper, or, in combination with 3D printing, the possibility to customize products in real time.
At the same time, there is a lack of practical implementation of the circular economy, due to the need for a radical change in production and consumption systems, which is difficult to achieve in the short term. Despite this, the existence of prospective projects that simulate its application is highlighted, as well as its capacity to effectively integrate the operations of companies into the sustainability paradigm. It is theorized that while the multidisciplinary approach to the circular economy demonstrates its relevance, it represents a major challenge in terms of formally creating a universal theoretical framework. This currently leads to conceiving the circular economy as a prospective concept under construction, implying the need to delimit a theoretical starting point that serves as a flexible axis applicable to different fields.
The complex aspect of the circular economy is outlined below. Previously, it was mentioned that this concept has a multidisciplinary nature, which adds a significant difficulty when implementing it at micro, meso or macro level. This is because the circular economy occurs in different industries, each with their respective characteristics, which entails the need to study the heterogeneity of each sector and how each circular construct must be adapted to it. Added to this, the characteristics of organizations also represent a key factor when implementing the circular economy, as it is believed that small and medium-sized enterprises, representing more than 90% of companies around the globe are more likely to fail when migrating to the circular economy. Considering their global representativeness, it is necessary to investigate which aspects can favor the inclusion of these entities into the circular paradigm.
The circular economy contemplates the triple bottom line, encompassing the economic, environmental and social dimension; in this way, it is directly linked to achieving sustainability. It is clear that the circular economy seeks growth without compromising resources, which encompasses the first 2 dimensions; however, there is a clear deficiency in how it encompasses the social dimension. Through the 3Rs or 6Rs, a resource optimization model is generated that implies higher performance and lower environmental impact, but the social spectrum is neglected. Achieving sustainable development also implies reducing social gaps, which generally means providing social development opportunities to every human being, regardless of their demographic characteristics. The circular economy can address the social dimension through its economic nature, creating jobs and providing greater opportunities for development through work; however, this does not necessarily represent an advantage or difference compared to the linear economy, so it is debatable whether this social approach is representative or not.
There are several aspects that favour or limit the implementation of the circular economy, although this area requires more emphasis from the scientific community, and it is possible to categorize these as aspects that have an ambivalent nature, for example. These are aspects that can be both drivers and barriers, such as the government, the cultural dimension, the market, or technology [103]. As previously mentioned, the inclusion of new technologies represents a new opportunity for the circular economy; however, the necessary acquisition costs simultaneously represent a barrier that needs to be explored in order to clarify the cost-benefit ratio, also considering the internal characteristics of each organisation. Again, the breadth of the circular economy is an aspect that needs to be addressed when determining drivers and barriers, meaning that a good identification of barriers and enablers will be strongly linked to a good situational analysis, regardless of the industry in which it is implemented.
This research provides a theoretical contribution aimed at elucidating what implications of the circular economy need to be addressed in order to build a universal or flexible theory to understand what it means to plan for the implementation of the circular economy. In this way, it hopes to strengthen its practical application, in particular. This research implies the need to create a general framework that can be adapted to different contexts and provides clear guidance on how to be part of the circular economy. At the same time, it provides study perspectives linked to the prospective vision of the circular economy, highlighting the overall impact of COVID-19 on the circular economy, the inclusion of advanced technologies, enablers and barriers, implementation, heterogeneity between industries, the adaptability of the circular economy, its link to sustainable development, as well as its social nature.
The main limitations of this document should be mentioned, starting with the fact that it is a systematic review, that, despite searching the largest possible amount of literature, could not fully access some databases (i.e., Wiley, New York, NY, USA). It can also be said that it is limited as it does not include conference papers, field reports, or company reports. Although an attempt has been made to reduce the subjectivity of the authors, it is possible to assume that literature relevant to the objective of the research may have been ignored when selecting journals of high scientific impact.
Despite the limitations, this research is expected to provide relevant knowledge that will enable the formulation of new research, be it new literature reviews that specifically address the topics reviewed in this paper (e.g., theoretical limitations of the circular economy, circular economy in industries, constraints and enablers of the circular economy, among others) or empirical research of a multivariate nature, mainly focused on a tentative vision of circular economy implementation, that will consistently contribute to the formulation of an established theory of the circular economy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.A.V.-M. and C.A.R.-L.; methodology, J.A.V.-M.; formal analysis, C.A.R.-L. and M.H.P.-B.; investigation, J.A.V.-M. and M.H.P.-B.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A.V.-M.; writing—review and editing, M.H.P.-B.; visualization, C.A.R.-L.; supervision, J.A.V.-M. and M.H.P.-B.; project administration, J.A.V.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This research was elaborated considering the PRISMA protocol.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The support of the Universidad Privada del Norte is gratefully acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

SubtitleDatabaseSearch StrategyInclusion/Exclusion CriteriaResultsDate
Subtitle 1CE State of ArtScopusTITLE-ABS-KEY (“circular economy”) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2022)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “re”))2022; non-redundant Articles and Reviews about the subject162918 April 2022
Web of Science(ALL = (“circular economy”)) AND (PY = (“2022”) AND DT = (“ARTICLE” OR “REVIEW” OR “EARLY ACCESS”) AND OA = (“OPEN ACCESS”))2022; non-redundant Articles and Reviews about the subject57118 April 2022
Subtitle 2CE ComplexityScopusTITLE-ABS-KEY (“circular economy” AND “goal” OR “dimension” OR “concept” OR “principle” OR “design” OR “framework” OR “theory”) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “re”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “BUSI”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2022) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2021) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2020) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2019) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2018))2022–2018; Business and Management; non-redundant Articles and Reviews about the subject12831 June 2022
Web of Science(ALL = (“circular economy” AND (“goal” OR “dimension” OR “concept” OR “principle” OR “design” OR “framework” OR “theory”))) AND (DT = (“ARTICLE” OR “REVIEW”) AND PY = =(“2022” OR “2021” OR “2020” OR “2019” OR “2018”) AND DT = =(“ARTICLE” OR “REVIEW”) AND TASCA = (“BUSINESS” OR “MANAGEMENT”))2022–2018; Business and Management; non-redundant Articles and Reviews about the subject5141 June 2022
Subtitle 3Drivers and BarriersScopusTITLE-ABS-KEY (“circular economy” AND “limitation” OR “barrier” OR “driver” OR “enabler”) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,”ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,”re”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA,”BUSI”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2022) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2021) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2020) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2019) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2018))2022–2018; Business and Management; non-redundant Articles and Reviews about the subject43014 June 2022
Web of Science(ALL = (“circular economy” AND (“limitation” OR “enabler” OR “driver” OR “barrier”))) AND (DT = (“ARTICLE” OR “REVIEW”) AND PY = (“2022” OR “2021” OR “2020” OR “2019” OR “2018”) AND DT = (“ARTICLE” OR “REVIEW”) AND TASCA = (“BUSINESS” OR “MANAGEMENT”))2022–2018; Business and Management; non-redundant Articles and Reviews about the subject4914 June 2022

References

  1. Gureva, M.A.; Deviatkova, Y.S. Formation of the Concept of a Circular Economy. Sist. Gestão 2020, 15, 156–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Velenturf, A.P.; Purnell, P. Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1437–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hobson, K.; Holmes, H.; Welch, D.; Wheeler, K.; Wieser, H. Consumption Work in the circular economy: A research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 321, 128969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ilic, M.P.; Rankovi´c, M.; Dobrilovi´c, M.; Bucea-Manea-Toni, R.; Mihoreanu, L.; Gheta, M.I.; Simion, V.E. Challenging Novelties within the Circular Economy Concept under the Digital Transformation of Society. Sustainability 2022, 14, 702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. The circular economy—A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Blomsma, F.; Brennan, G. The Emergence of Circular Economy: A New Framing Around Prolonging Resource Productivity. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 603–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Suchek, N.; Fernandes, C.I.; Kraus, S.; Filser, M.; Sjögrén, H. Innovation and the circular economy: A systematic literature review. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 3686–3702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schröder, P.; Lemille, A.; Desmond, P. Making the circular economy work for human development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 156, 104686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Testa, F.; Iovino, R.; Iraldo, F. The circular economy and consumer behaviour: The mediating role of information seeking in buying circular packaging. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 3435–3448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mhatre, P.; Panchal, R.; Singh, A.; Bibyan, S. A systematic literature review on the circular economy initiatives in the European Union. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Suárez-Eiroa, B.; Fernández, E.; Méndez-Martínez, G.; Soto-Oñate, D. Operational principles of circular economy for sustainable development: Linking theory and practice. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 952–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kirchherr, J.; Piscicelli, L.; Bour, R.; Kostense-Smit, E.; Muller, J.; Huibrechtse-Truijens, A.; Hekkert, M. Barriers to the Circular Economy: Evidence From the European Union (EU). Ecol. Econ. 2018, 150, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Prieto-Sandoval, V.; Jaca, C.; Ormazabal, M. Towards a consensus on the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 179, 605–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. De Angelis, R. Circular economy and paradox theory: A business model perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 285, 124823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Figge, F.; Thorpe, A.S. The symbiotic rebound effect in the circular economy. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 163, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. 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. 2016, 114, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stahel, W.R. Circular economy—A new relationship with our goods and materials would save resources and energy and create local jobs. Nature 2016, 531, 435–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Primc, K.; Kalar, B.; Slabe-Erker, R.; Dominko, M.; Ogorevc, M. Circular economy configuration indicators in organizational life cycle theory. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 116, 106532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Grant, M.J.; Booth, A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 2009, 26, 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhu, B.; Nguyen, M.; Siri, N.S.; Malik, A. Towards a transformative model of circular economy for SMEs. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 144, 545–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nobre, G.C.; Tavares, E. The quest for a circular economy final definition: A scientific perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 314, 127973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hennemann, T.; Sehnem, S. The circular economy and Industry 4.0: Synergies and challenges. Rev. Gestão 2022, 29, 300–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Skvarciany, V.; Lapinskaite, I.; Volskyte, G. Circular economy as assistance for sustainable development in OECD countries. Oeconomia Copernic. 2021, 12, 11–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Geisendorf, S.; Pietrulla, F. The circular economy and circular economic concepts—A literature analysis and redefinition. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2017, 60, 771–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Neves, S.A.; Marques, A.C. Drivers and barriers in the transition from a linear economy to a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 341, 130865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Clube, R.K.M.; Tennant, M. Social inclusion and the circular economy: The case of a fashion textiles manufacturer in Vietnam. Bus. Strategy Dev. 2021, 5, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Padilla-Rivera, A.; Russo-Garrido, S.; Merveille, N. Addressing the Social Aspects of a Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gil-Lamata, M.; Latorre-Martínez, M.P. The Circular Economy and Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review. Cuad. Gest. 2022, 22, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Murray, A.; Skene, K.; Haynes, K. The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Concept and Application in a Global Context. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Elia, V.; Gnoni, M.G.; Tornese, F. Measuring circular economy strategies through index methods: A critical analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2741–2751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hofstetter, J.S.; De Marchi, V.; Sarkis, J.; Govindan, K.; Klassen, R.; Ometto, A.R.; Spraul, K.S.; Bocken, N.; Ashton, W.S.; Sharma, S.; et al. From Sustainable Global Value Chains to Circular Economy—Different Silos, Different Perspectives, but Many Opportunities to Build Bridges. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2021, 1, 21–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Circular Consumer Electronics: An Initial Exploration. 2018. Available online: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-consumer-electronics-an-initial-exploration (accessed on 2 September 2022).
  35. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Artificial Intelligence and the Circular Economy—AI as a Tool to Accelerate the Transition. 2019. Available online: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/artificial-intelligence-and-the-circular-economy (accessed on 2 September 2022).
  36. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Tech Enablers Series: More than Just a Big Idea—How Extended Reality Tech Can Enable a Circular Economy. Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20221011065737/https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/tech-enablers-series/part-1 (accessed on 2 September 2022).
  37. Garmulewicz, A.; Holweg, M.; Veldhuis, H.; Yang, A. Disruptive Technology as an Enabler of the Circular Economy: What Potential Does 3D Printing Hold? Calif. Manag. Rev. 2018, 60, 112–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Giurca, A.; Befort, N.; Taylor, A. Exploring transformative policy imaginaries for a sustainable Post-COVID society. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 344, 131053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lim, J.S.; Li, C.; Van Fan, Y.; Klemeš, J.J. How circular economy and green technology can address Sustainable Development Goals? J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 333, 130161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. The Circular Economy: A Transformative COVID-19 Recovery Strategy How Policymakers Can Pave the Way to a Low Carbon, Prosperous Future. 2020. Available online: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/a-transformative-covid-19-recovery-strategy (accessed on 2 September 2022).
  41. Mallett, R.; Hagen-Zanker, J.; Slater, R.; Duvendack, M. The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research. J. Dev. Eff. 2012, 4, 445–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Campbell, R.; Pound, P.; Pope, C.; Britten, N.; Pill, R.; Morgan, M.; Donovan, J. Evaluating meta-ethnography: A synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc. Sci. Med. 2002, 56, 671–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kraus, S.; Breier, M.; Dasí-Rodríguez, S. The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2020, 16, 1023–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Rowley, J.; Slack, F. Conducting a literature review. Manag. Res. News 2004, 27, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Paul, J.; Criado, A.R. The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? Int. Bus. Rev. 2020, 29, 101717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Harrison, H.; Griffin, S.J.; Kuhn, I.; Usher-Smith, J.A. Software tools to support title and abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: An evaluation. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2020, 20, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Rejeb, A.; Suhaiza, Z.; Rejeb, K.; Seuring, S.; Treiblmaier, H. The Internet of Things and the circular economy: A systematic literature review and research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 350, 131439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jacobs, C.; Soulliere, K.; Sawyer-Beaulieu, S.; Sabzwari, A.; Tam, E. Challenges to the Circular Economy: Recovering Wastes from Simple versus Complex Products. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Taghipour, A.; Akkalatham, W.; Eaknarajindawat, N.; Stefanakis, A.I. The impact of government policies and steel recycling companies’ performance on sustainable management in a circular economy. Resour. Policy 2022, 77, 102663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Uribe-Toril, J.; Ruiz-Real, J.L.; Durán, A.C.G.; Arriaza, J.A.T.; de Pablo Valenciano, J. The Circular Economy and retail: Using Deep Learning to predict business survival. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2022, 34, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Suchek, N.; Ferreira, J.J.; Fernandes, P.O. A review of entrepreneurship and circular economy research: State of the art and future directions. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 2256–2283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gonçalves, B.d.S.M.; de Carvalho, F.L.; Fiorini, P.D.C. Circular Economy and Financial Aspects: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lagrasta, F.P.; Pontrandolfo, P.; Scozzi, B. Circular Economy Business Models for the Tanzanian Coffee Sector: A Teaching Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wasserbaur, R.; Sakao, T.; Milios, L. Interactions of governmental policies and business models for a circular economy: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 337, 130329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Al-Obadi, M.; Ayad, H.; Pokharel, S.; Ayari, M.A. Perspectives on food waste management: Prevention and social innovations. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 31, 190–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Deng, S.; Kpodzro, E.; Maani, T.; Li, Z.; Huang, A.; Yih, Y.; Zhao, F.; Sutherland, J.W. Planning a circular economy system for electric vehicles using network simulation. J. Manuf. Syst. 2022, 63, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rosenboom, J.-G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics for a circular economy. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2022, 7, 117–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jin, K.; Pezzuolo, A.; Gouda, S.G.; Jia, S.; Eraky, M.; Ran, Y.; Chen, M.; Ai, P. Valorization of bio-fertilizer from anaerobic digestate through ammonia stripping process: A practical and sustainable approach towards circular economy. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2022, 27, 102414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Salim, H.; Sahin, O.; Elsawah, S.; Turan, H.; Stewart, R.A. A critical review on tackling complex rare earth supply security problem. Resour. Policy 2022, 77, 102697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tirado, R.; Aublet, A.; Laurenceau, S.; Habert, G. Challenges and Opportunities for Circular Economy Promotion in the Building Sector. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Deviatkin, I.; Rousu, S.; Ghoreishi, M.; Nassajfar, M.N.; Horttanainen, M.; Leminen, V. Implementation of Circular Economy Strategies within the Electronics Sector: Insights from Finnish Companies. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lehmann, C.; Cruz-Jesus, F.; Oliveira, T.; Damásio, B. Leveraging the circular economy: Investment and innovation as drivers. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 360, 132146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Vinante, C.; Sacco, P.; Orzes, G.; Borgianni, Y. Circular economy metrics: Literature review and company-level classification framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 288, 125090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tokazhanov, G.; Galiyev, O.; Lukyanenko, A.; Nauyryzbay, A.; Ismagulov, R.; Durdyev, S.; Turkyilmaz, A.; Karaca, F. Circularity assessment tool development for construction projects in emerging economies. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 362, 132293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mattos, C.A.; Scur, G.; Albuquerque, T.L. Evaluation of Circular Business Model: Theory of Change Approach. Eval. Program Plan. 2022, 92, 102069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Kristensen, H.S.; Mosgaard, M.A. A review of micro level indicators for a circular economy—Moving away from the three dimensions of sustainability? J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Patwa, N.; Sivarajah, U.; Seetharaman, A.; Sarkar, S.; Maiti, K.; Hingorani, K. Towards a circular economy: An emerging economies context. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 122, 725–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Malik, A.; Sharma, P.; Vinu, A.; Karakoti, A.; Kaur, K.; Gujral, H.S.; Munjal, S.; Laker, B. Circular economy adoption by SMEs in emerging markets: Towards a multilevel conceptual framework. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 142, 605–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Patyal, V.S.; Sarma, P.; Modgil, S.; Nag, T.; Dennehy, D. Mapping the links between Industry 4.0, circular economy and sustainability: A systematic literature review. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2022, 35, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rincón-Moreno, J.; Ormazábal, M.; Álvarez, M.; Jaca, C. Advancing circular economy performance indicators and their application in Spanish companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 279, 123605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kennedy, S.; Linnenluecke, M.K. Circular economy and resilience: A research agenda. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 2754–2765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Temesgen, A.; Storsletten, V.; Jakobsen, O. Circular Economy—Reducing Symptoms or Radical Change? Philos. Manag. 2019, 20, 37–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lozano, R.; Bautista-Puig, N.; Barreiro-Gen, M. Elucidating a holistic and panoptic framework for analysing circular economy. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 1644–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chen, L.-H.; Hung, P.; Ma, H. Integrating circular business models and development tools in the circular economy transition process: A firm-level framework. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 1887–1898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Antonioli, D.; Ghisetti, C.; Mazzanti, M.; Nicolli, F. Sustainable production: The economic returns of circular economy practices. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 2603–2617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Barnabè, F.; Nazir, S. Conceptualizing and enabling circular economy through integrated thinking. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 29, 448–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ioannidis, A.; Chalvatzis, K.J.; Leonidou, L.C.; Feng, Z. Applying the reduce, reuse, and recycle principle in the hospitality sector: Its antecedents and performance implications. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 3394–3410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Alonso, I.B.; Sánchez-Rivero, M.V.; Pozas, B.M. Mapping sustainability and circular economy in cities: Methodological framework from europe to the Spanish case. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 357, 131870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Suárez-Eiroa, B.; Fernández, E.; Méndez, G. Integration of the circular economy paradigm under the just and safe operating space narrative: Twelve operational principles based on circularity, sustainability and resilience. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 322, 129071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gonçalves, C.; Hofmann, A.; Pigosso, D.; Mascarenhas, J. The rebound effect of circular economy: Definitions, mechanisms and a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 345, 131136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Opferkuch, K.; Caeiro, S.; Salomone, R.; Ramos, T.B. Circular economy in corporate sustainability reporting: A review of organisational approaches. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 4015–4036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Scarpellini, S. Social impacts of a circular business model: An approach from a sustainability accounting and reporting perspective. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 29, 646–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Do, Q.; Mishra, N.; Colicchia, C.; Creazza, A.; Ramudhin, A. An extended institutional theory perspective on the adoption of circular economy practices: Insights from the seafood industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 247, 108400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kopnina, H. Towards Ecological Management: Identifying Barriers and Opportunities in Transition from Linear to Circular Economy. Philos. Manag. 2021, 20, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Mehmood, A.; Ahmed, S.; Viza, E.; Bogush, A.; Ayyub, R.M. Drivers and barriers towards circular economy in agri-food supply chain: A review. Bus. Strategy Dev. 2021, 4, 465–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ali, Q.; Parveen, S.; Yaacob, H.; Rani, A.N.; Zaini, Z. Environmental beliefs and the adoption of circular economy among bank managers: Do gender, age and knowledge act as the moderators? J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 361, 132276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Antwi-Afari, P.; Ng, S.T.; Chen, J. Developing an integrative method and design guidelines for achieving systemic circularity in the construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 354, 131752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. De Pascale, A.; Arbolino, R.; Szopik-Depczyńska, K.; Limosani, M.; Ioppolo, G. A systematic review for measuring circular economy: The 61 indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 281, 124942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Grafström, J.; Aasma, S. Breaking circular economy barriers. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 292, 126002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Austin, A.; Rahman, I.U. A triple helix of market failures: Financing the 3Rs of the circular economy in European SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 361, 132284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Tura, N.; Hanski, J.; Ahola, T.; Ståhle, M.; Piiparinen, S.; Valkokari, P. Unlocking circular business: A framework of barriers and drivers. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 212, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Patel, M.N.; Pujara, A.A.; Kant, R.; Malviya, R.K. Assessment of circular economy enablers: Hybrid ISM and fuzzy MICMAC approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 317, 128387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Jaeger, B.; Upadhyay, A. Understanding barriers to circular economy: Cases from the manufacturing industry. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020, 33, 729–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Lindgreen, E.R.; Opferkuch, K.; Walker, A.M.; Salomone, R.; Reyes, T.; Raggi, A.; Simboli, A.; Vermeulen, W.J.V.; Caeiro, S. Exploring assessment practices of companies actively engaged with circular economy. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 1414–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Gedam, V.V.; Raut, R.D.; Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.; Tanksale, A.N.; Narkhede, B.E. Circular economy practices in a developing economy: Barriers to be defeated. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 311, 127670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kayikci, Y.; Kazancoglu, Y.; Lafci, C.; Gozacan, N. Exploring barriers to smart and sustainable circular economy: The case of an automotive eco-cluster. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 314, 127920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Govindan, K.; Hasanagic, M. A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: A supply chain perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017, 56, 278–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Hina, M.; Chauhan, C.; Kaur, P.; Kraus, S.; Dhir, A. Drivers and barriers of circular economy business models: Where we are now, and where we are heading. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 333, 130049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Chowdhury, S.; Dey, P.K.; Rodríguez-Espíndola, O.; Parkes, G.; Tuyet, N.T.A.; Long, D.D.; Ha, T.P. Impact of Organisational Factors on the Circular Economy Practices and Sustainable Performance of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in Vietnam. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 147, 362–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Guldmann, E.; Huulgaard, R.D. Barriers to circular business model innovation: A multiple-case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 243, 118160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Mishra, R.; Singh, R.K.; Govindan, K. Barriers to the adoption of circular economy practices in Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises: Instrument development, measurement, and validation: Barrier to the adoption of circular economy practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 351, 131389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Münster, M.; Sönnichsen, S.; Clement, J. Retail design in the transition to circular economy: A study of barriers and drivers. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 362, 132310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Wang, J.X.; Burke, H.; Zhang, A. Overcoming barriers to circular product design. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 243, 108346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Fachbach, I.; Lechner, G.; Reimann, M. Drivers of the consumers’ intention to use repair services, repair networks and to self-repair. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 346, 130969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Dupont, C.; Oberthür, S.; von Homeyer, I. The COVID-19 crisis: A critical juncture for EU climate policy development? J. Eur. Integr. 2020, 42, 1095–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 14682 g001 550
Figure 1. Research procedure.
Figure 1. Research procedure.
Sustainability 14 14682 g001
Sustainability 14 14682 g002 550
Figure 2. Scopus Scientific Production until June 2022.
Figure 2. Scopus Scientific Production until June 2022.
Sustainability 14 14682 g002
Sustainability 14 14682 g003 550
Figure 3. WoS Scientific Production until June 2022.
Figure 3. WoS Scientific Production until June 2022.
Sustainability 14 14682 g003
Sustainability 14 14682 g004 550
Figure 4. Distribution of systematized scientific articles by year.
Figure 4. Distribution of systematized scientific articles by year.
Sustainability 14 14682 g004
Sustainability 14 14682 g005 550
Figure 5. Distribution of scientific articles by subtitles.
Figure 5. Distribution of scientific articles by subtitles.
Sustainability 14 14682 g005
Sustainability 14 14682 g006 550
Figure 6. Relationship between concepts of sustainable development and circular economy. Taken from Gureva & Deviatkova [1], citing [31]).
Figure 6. Relationship between concepts of sustainable development and circular economy. Taken from Gureva & Deviatkova [1], citing [31]).
Sustainability 14 14682 g006
Sustainability 14 14682 g007 550
Figure 7. Circular Economy theoretical framework.
Figure 7. Circular Economy theoretical framework.
Sustainability 14 14682 g007
Table
Table 1. Distribution of articles by country.
Table 1. Distribution of articles by country.
CountryArticles
UK14
Italy10
India7
Denmark6
Spain5
Portugal5
China4
France4
Brazil4
Australia4
Other53
Table
Table 2. Distribution of articles by scientific journals.
Table 2. Distribution of articles by scientific journals.
Scientific JournalNumber of ArticlesSJR (2021)JIF (2021)
Journal of Cleaner Production271.9211.072
Business Strategy and the Environment82.2410.801
Sustainability60.663.889
Journal of Business Research42.3210.969
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management21.958.464
Others20
Table
Table 3. Distribution of articles by approach.
Table 3. Distribution of articles by approach.
ArticlesMethodologyCommon Techniques/Instrument
43Qualitativesystematic literature review, semi-structured interview, case study, in-depth interview, Delphi Method, expert interviews, and surveys
17Quantitativeexploratory/confirmatory factor analysis-structural equation model, Quantile regressions, Pearson correlation coefficient, surveys
7Mixed
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vargas-Merino, J.A.; Rios-Lama, C.A.; Panez-Bendezú, M.H. Circular Economy: Approaches and Perspectives of a Variable with a Growing Trend in the Scientific World—A Systematic Review of the Last 5 Years. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214682

AMA Style

Vargas-Merino JA, Rios-Lama CA, Panez-Bendezú MH. Circular Economy: Approaches and Perspectives of a Variable with a Growing Trend in the Scientific World—A Systematic Review of the Last 5 Years. Sustainability. 2022; 14(22):14682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214682

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vargas-Merino, Jorge Alberto, Cristian Armando Rios-Lama, and Miguel Humberto Panez-Bendezú. 2022. "Circular Economy: Approaches and Perspectives of a Variable with a Growing Trend in the Scientific World—A Systematic Review of the Last 5 Years" Sustainability 14, no. 22: 14682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214682

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop