Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessSystematic Review

Peer-Review Record

An Overview and Categorization of the Drivers and Barriers to the Adoption of the Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review

Sustainability 2023, 15(13), 10532; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310532

by Carina Pasqualotto^1,*

, Daniela Callegaro-De-Menezes¹

and Cornelius Stephanus Lodewyk Schutte^2,*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3:

Balkrishna Eknath Narkhede

Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Sustainability 2023, 15(13), 10532; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310532

Submission received: 12 April 2023 / Revised: 23 June 2023 / Accepted: 26 June 2023 / Published: 4 July 2023

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Development Goals: A Pragmatic Approach)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thanks for opportunity to read your study that is interesting but needs some improvements.

First, there are a plenty of similar studies, you should define "the gap/call for your study" in introduction. How do you differ, compared to other studies? What is novel? Why it is important for reader? What is the contribution? You should also clearly point out the central research question of your paper and the aim, both in introduction.

An introductory paragraph introducing the reader to this issue would be appropriate. You can modify your first paragraph, but I recommend adding more recent literature. Overall, I feel like you missed a number of new studies in your paper. See, for example, following papers that I recommend to include:

Horbach, J., & Rammer, C. (2020). Circular economy innovations, growth and employment at the firm level: Empirical evidence from Germany. Journal of industrial ecology, 24(3), 615-625.

Arthur, E. E., Gyamfi, S., Gerstlberger, W., Stejskal, J., & Prokop, V. (2023). Towards Circular Economy: Unveiling Heterogeneous Effects of Government Policy Stringency, Environmentally Related Innovation, and Human Capital within OECD Countries. Sustainability, 15(6), 4959.

Hojnik, J., Ruzzier, M., Ruzzier, M. K., Sučić, B., & Soltwisch, B. (2023). Challenges of demographic changes and digitalization on eco-innovation and the circular economy: Qualitative insights from companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 396, 136439.

Next, there is a need to prepare one paragraph describing the current state of knowledge - based on this, you can define research gap.

Theory - merge some paragraphs, divide into subsections, make it more clear for reader. You could also define research questions.

Table 4 - I have a problem with the fact that you list continents and countries together in the table. I recommend more elaboration and proper division. At the same time, for example, you are missing a mention of the Baltic countries and research on the topic of the circular economy. See:

Ahmadov, T., Gerstlberger, W., & Prause, G. K. (2022). Fiscal Incentives for Circular Economy: Insights from the Baltic States. In Business Models for the Circular Economy: A European Perspective (pp. 219-239). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Also, what about the issue of Central and Easter Europe and its sustainable behaviour? See:

Prokop, V., Gerstlberger, W., Zapletal, D., & Striteska, M. K. (2022). The double-edged role of firm environmental behaviour in the creation of product innovation in Central and Eastern European countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 331, 129989.

Table 6 - It would be appropriate to further combine the states into larger groups and compare whether they have similar characteristics or, on the contrary, what makes them different.

The authors use too many bullet points and the text is very difficult to read.

I recommend dividing the conclusions into a section - contributions and implications, where the authors define the contribution of their paper, also with regard to current publications on this topic. At the same time, they should suggest country/region specific implications of their findings. The next section should contain more limitations and future research directions.

Good luck with your revisions!

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks very much for your time and attention in collaborating with the suggestions to became our paper better. See below in red our reply point by point regarding your comments. I hope to have answered all your requests.

Point 1: First, there are a plenty of similar studies, you should define "the gap/call for your study" in introduction. How do you differ, compared to other studies? What is novel? Why it is important for reader? What is the contribution? You should also clearly point out the central research question of your paper and the aim, both in introduction.

Horbach, J., & Rammer, C. (2020). Circular economy innovations, growth and employment at the firm level: Empirical evidence from Germany. Journal of industrial ecology, 24(3), 615-625.

Next, there is a need to prepare one paragraph describing the current state of knowledge - based on this, you can define research gap.

Response 1: Introduction

In the introduction section, we have created a new paragraph describing the current state of knowledge and existing studies and we have worked on the research gap showing the novelty of our paper and differing it from the existing studies. We have also clearly pointed out the aim of the study. The new paragraph, introducing the reader to all these issues, was created. See below text inserted in the article:

Considering the importance of the topic, a growing number of authors have explored the theme of CE, specifically drivers and barriers. However, some studies have focused only on issues that facilitate the implementation of CE (drivers) (Gusmerotti et al., 2019; Hartley et al., 2020; Robaina et al., 2020), other studies have focused only on factors that hinder the implementation of CE (barriers) (Dieckmann et al., 2020; García‐Quevedo et al., 2020; Guldmann & Huulgaard (2020); Kanters, 2020; Werning & Spinler, 2020) and some studies deals with both, drivers and barriers, but in specific contexts, e.g. supply chain (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; Masi et al., 2017), textile and apparel industry (Jia et al., 2020), small and medium enterprise (Mura et al., 2020) and buildings and infrastructure area (Hart et al., 2019), or in specific countries, e.g. Brazil (Jabbour et al., 2020), China (Xue et al., 2010), Taiwan (Chang & Hsieh, 2019) and Finland (Tura et al., 2019). Additionally, there are some studies in the literature that categorized only drivers to CE (Moktadir et al., 2018; Gusmerotti et al., 2019), only barriers to CE (Kumar et al., 2019; Guldmann & Huulguard, 2020; Nohra et al., 2020), and both (drivers and barriers) together (Agyemang et al., 2019; Hart et al., 2019; Jia et al., 2020). However, an in-depth and more complete analysis of joining drivers and barriers to CE adoption is necessary. Moreover, Mishra et al. (2022) developed, measured, and validated an instrument for barriers to the adoption of CE practices in Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), determining seven dimensions, but the drivers to CE adoption were not considered in this study. Elia et al. (2020) analyzed the relationship between the level of supply chain integration and the adopted CE strategies from the industrial field, not specifically drivers and barriers to CE adoption. Thus, despite these studies already developed, there is a lack of investigation in the literature approaching drivers and barriers in a more detailed way, in a microenvironment involving different actors like small, medium, and large companies, government, and consumers in the context of the CE. In this sense, this study aims to identify and categorize drivers and barriers to CE adoption.

Also in the introduction section, we have clearly pointed out the central research question of our paper: What are the drivers and barriers to CE adoption, and how to categorize them according to the literature?

Moreover, we have briefly mentioned the paper sections at the end of the introductory section for highlighting the research structure in responding to the research question.

References:

Horbach, J., & Rammer, C. (2020). Circular economy innovations, growth and employment at the firm level: Empirical evidence from Germany. Journal of industrial ecology, 24(3), 615-625.

Zhang, Q., Dhir, A., & Kaur, P. (2022). Circular economy and the food sector: A systematic literature review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 32, 655-668.

Point 2: Theory - merge some paragraphs, divide into subsections, make it more clear for reader. You could also define research questions.

Response 2:

According to your suggestions and those from other reviewers, we have reorganized the theory section and divided it into two subsections making it more clear for the reader, as follows:

2.1 Circular Economy, and

2.2 Drivers and Barriers to Circular Economy

In subsection 2.1, some recent literature was considered in the text, and critiques on CE were also included. See below texts inserted in the article:

...becoming a popular discourse, especially in the government and corporate sector (Friant et al., 2020).

According to Zhang et al. (2022, p.656), CE is perceived as a substitute for the take-make-waste linear economy.

However, according to Friant et al. (2020), the definition, objectives, and forms of implementation of the CE are still unclear, inconsistent, and contested, especially because different actors and sectors are thus articulating circular discourses which align with their own interests, usually often do not sufficiently examine the ecological, social, and political implications of circularity. In line with these authors, Corvellec et al. (2022) addressed critiques of the CE in their study considering that the CE has diffused limits, unclear theoretical grounds and that its implementation faces structural obstacles.

Subsection 2.2 regarding drivers and barriers to circular economy was rewritten adding more recent references from the theme (Arthur et al., 2023).

Finally, Table 1 was moved from the method section to the theoretical basis section in order to present the drivers and barriers categorization found in the literature.

References:

Corvellec, H., Stowell, A.F. and Johansson, N., 2022. Critiques of the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26(2), pp.421-432.

Friant, M.C., Vermeulen, W.J. and Salomone, R., 2020. A typology of circular economy discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 161, p.104917.

Zhang, Q., Dhir, A., & Kaur, P. (2022). Circular economy and the food sector: A systematic literature review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 32, 655-668.

Point 3: Table 4 - I have a problem with the fact that you list continents and countries together in the table. I recommend more elaboration and proper division. At the same time, for example, you are missing a mention of the Baltic countries and research on the topic of the circular economy. See:

Ahmadov, T., Gerstlberger, W., & Prause, G. K. (2022). Fiscal Incentives for Circular Economy: Insights from the Baltic States. In Business Models for the Circular Economy: A European Perspective (pp. 219-239). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Also, what about the issue of Central and Easter Europe and its sustainable behaviour? See:

Table 6 - It would be appropriate to further combine the states into larger groups and compare whether they have similar characteristics or, on the contrary, what makes them different.

Response 3:

Although the study does not aim to discuss drivers and barriers in different regions and countries, it is suggested that future studies take these local idiosyncrasies into account, since behaviors are different in each country or region, which makes it an important topic to be discussed.

In fact, the study of Ahmadov et al. (2022) discusses the circular economy in the Baltic States region and the study of Prokop et al. (2022) works with circular economy in the central and eastern European countries. Due to the importance of different countries having different behaviors, this issue was inserted in the article as a suggestion for future studies.

Regarding Table 4 (containing the countries and regions where the articles contemplating drivers for the adoption of CE were applied) has a problem with the fact that it listed continents and countries together, we have redone the Table in a more elaborate way using the correct classifications. First, information from countries and regions, as well as the authors of studies that addressed barriers to the adoption of CE, were extracted from Table 6 and inserted into Table 4, in order to unify information on drivers and barriers in a single table. Thus, Table 6 was excluded from the article. Second, for articles where the studies had been applied in Europe or the European Union, we tried to insert the name of all the countries where the research would have been applied. Only in two articles was the country in which the study was carried out not informed (Ranta et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2019). Third, in order to better analyze the data, we have grouped the countries by continent.

A new Table 4 was inserted in the manuscript: Countries and regions whose articles on CE drivers and barriers were applied

References:

Ahmadov, T., Gerstlberger, W., & Prause, G. K. (2022). Fiscal Incentives for Circular Economy: Insights from the Baltic States. In Business Models for the Circular Economy: A European Perspective. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 219-239

Point 4: The authors use too many bullet points and the text is very difficult to read.

Response 4:

We have reorganized the text in section 4 adjusting the bullet points, as suggested by the reviewer.

Point 5: I recommend dividing the conclusions into a section - contributions and implications, where the authors define the contribution of their paper, also with regard to current publications on this topic. At the same time, they should suggest country/region specific implications of their findings. The next section should contain more limitations and future research directions.

Response 5:

The conclusion was rewritten in subsections: 5.1 Contributions and Implications, and 5.2 Limitations and Future Research. See below the new text added to the manuscript:

5. Conclusions

5.1 Contributions and Implications

This study, through a systematic literature review, aimed to identify and categorize drivers and barriers to CE adoption. Considering 53 analyzed articles, the study’s conclusion will be presented.

The results of the study show that there are more articles in the literature presenting barriers to the adoption of CE than those presenting drivers to its adoption. Consequently, the study shows that there are more barriers in the literature than drivers to CE adoption. Thus, it is observed that the literature demonstrates a greater concern with what bars, prevents, or hinders companies and society to have a circular behavior, more appropriate to the current trend of concern with the scarcity of resources in the environment.

Furthermore, it was observed that there are different contexts and sectors in which analyzed studies were applied, and a significant range of countries and regions around the world. The region where the largest number of searches was observed was Europe. Corroborating this, there has been an intense debate on energy policies and issues related to the environment among the countries of the European Union in the last 50 years (Panarello & Gatto, 2023), culminating, in 2019, with the affirmation of commitments to face the challenges of sustainability by adopt the European Green Deal (EGD), a set of initiatives for environmental protection whose main objective is to promote sustainable development strategies focused on energy emissions and mitigation of climate change (Cuadros‐Casanova et al., 2023). Furthermore, these European Green Deal policies can be framed in economic models that promote sustainable development – such as the circular economy goals (Camilleri, 2020).

Finally, the authors of 19 of the articles analyzed in this paper used some categorization to present the drivers and barriers in their studies. Following this idea, the drivers and barriers listed in the literature review were grouped according to ten categories identified and proposed for this study. The ten categories of drivers that can help the implementation of CE and barriers to disrupting its adoption are presented as follows.

The first category defined in the study, the environmental category, looks at environmental aspects related to sustainability, waste management, recycling, and scarcity of resources (Tura et al., 2019). The concern with environmental impacts, as well as, with environmental sustainability, are subjects discussed a lot in the literature (Jia et al., 2020; Flores, 2022).

The second category identified was the supply chain category which involves supply chain, distribution channels, logistics, and reverse logistics aspects (Ritzén & Sandström, 2017). It is important to pay close attention to the supply chain as a whole in order to succeed in CE development. CE strategies are crucial to restructure the take-make-discard model through the active participation of all actors in the supply chain (Borrello et al., 2017).

The economic category was the third category defined in the study and covers financial aspects, sales, profitability, revenues, earnings, costs, accounting, costs and price of raw materials, and regulatory costs of environmental pollution and waste (Nohra et al., 2020). Lack of financial resources is a major limitation for companies to adopt CE (Piyathanavong et al., 2019), which could be dealt with by government support and public policies to achieve CE, as suggested by Arthur et al. (2023).

The fourth category identified was the information category which considers aspects related to information, CE knowledge, information sharing, learning, training, and experience (Masi et al., 2017). It is important that everyone involved in the circular chain has the necessary information for it to develop successfully. One of the goals of the 12th sustainable development goal of the Agenda 2030 (2015) is to ensure that people have relevant information and awareness about sustainable development.

The fifth category identified was the legal category, looking at normative and regulatory aspects, and their costs (Kumar et al., 2019). The lack of laws supporting CE practices becomes one of the major obstacles to the implementation of CE (Ranta et al., 2018; Milios et al., 2019). The policymakers should look with attention to developing laws that could incentivize the companies to adopt CE.

The market category was the sixth category defined for the present study. External aspects of the organization, like consumer environmental awareness, consumer preference, market demands, and trends embrace this category (Guldmann & Huulgaard, 2020). There is an increase in environmental awareness and concern for the environment on the part of consumers, thus generating an increase in demand for circular products. While joining CE encourages the emergence of new demands for services and new potential markets (Korhonen et al., 2018), companies' interest in adopting CE increases.

The seventh category identified in this study was the organizational category, considering aspects related to companies and commercial institutions, i.e., internal company/organization aspects such as competition and competitiveness, performance indicators, organizational culture, company policy, environmental aspects of the company, aspects related to property, management and personal department, product, raw material, components, suppliers, partnerships, customers, brand and company image (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018). The benefits arising from the implementation of CE for companies are numerous, but on the other hand, the challenges are also great. The adoption of CE generates competitive advantages for circular companies (Gusmerotti et al., 2019; Jia et al., 2020), thus, CE has been attracting the business community to work on sustainable development (Korhonen et al., 2018).

The public category was the eighth category defined in the study, involving aspects from Government, States, and Municipalities, such as its support, encouragement, financial aid, and public policies (Geng & Doberstein, 2008). The lack of incentives and industrial and financial support from the government is one of the main obstacles to the implementation of CE identified in the literature (Piyathanavong et al., 2019; Nohra et al., 2020; Shao et al., 2020). It is thus observed that public involvement is fundamental for CE to develop. Financial resources are scarce, making implementing CE unfeasible for many companies (Ormazabal et al., 2018; Farooque et al., 2019), especially small and medium-sized ones. Through financial, tax, and fiscal support, or public policy, the adoption of CE could be encouraged. In line with this, Arthur et al. (2023) mentioned that a blend of government policies is an effective means of achieving a CE.

The ninth category identified in the study was the social category. This category involves society and community aspects, like job creation and reduction of the unemployment rate, population, public health, safety, hygiene, social responsibility, social projects, and public awareness (Kumar et al., 2019). Increased awareness of social responsibility (Flores, 2022) should be harnessed as a driver for new circular business opportunities and CE development.

Finally, the tenth category defined in the study was the technological category which considers science, technology, and technical aspects (Kirchherr et al., 2018). Considering that we live in a technological era, of digitization and great technological developments, companies could benefit from these aspects to help them in the development of CE. It is suggested the development of specific technologies for the development of CE. In this sense, the 2030 Agenda (2015) points to the goal of the 12th goal of sustainable development, supporting developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacities toward more sustainable patterns of production and consumption.

A summary of drivers and barriers to the adoption of the CE is presented in Figure 3.

This study contributes first by extending the body of knowledge on CE, helping to integrate the existing literature and develop a comprehensive theoretical framework for guiding them, as mentioned by Zhang et al. (2022). Due to the assessment of an expressive number of articles, a list of 160 drivers and 430 barriers to CE adoption was obtained. Having these drivers and barriers to CE adoption listed in the literature, it is possible to have an in-depth understanding of the CE context, allowing companies and governments to work toward CE implementation, helping the transition from a linear economy to CE, more efficient in resources, advancing toward sustainable economies (García-Quevedo et al., 2020). The transition from a linear economy to a CE is a matter of extreme relevance in the search for more sustainable development (Testa et al., 2020).

In line with this, the second contribution of this study is to bring sustainable benefits for companies and society since deals with aspects to foster the CE and aspects which make difficult the CE implementation. By 2030, substantially reducing waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse, and achieving sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources are some of the goals of the 12th sustainable development goal addressed in Agenda 2030 (2015), ensuring standards of sustainable production and consumption (Agenda 2030, 2015). In this sense, CE can be considered a promising concept for sustainable development (Korhonen et al., 2018).

Third, the presentation of an extensive literature review allowed for a broader view and categorization of drivers and barriers to EC adoption. These contributions are important to help companies develop CE and encourage them to implement CE. Also, contributes to helping the government to get knowledge to work on public policy implementation and actions to foster the CE, in order to promote CE and develop circular processes in the city. Furthermore, it would facilitate practitioners to understand the drivers and barriers to EC adoption to handle them effectively.

5.2 Limitations and Future Research

The main limitations of this research refer to the number of bases used. Only the Scopus database was used to collect data. It is suggested that future studies use also other databases.

Even though this review was quite comprehensive, the search strategy used only the most consolidated terms in the literature and may have left out some articles that used other nomenclatures. Thus, it is suggested that future studies use not only consolidated terms (for example, circular economy), but also different combinations of keywords that may be synonymous, such as, for example, circular practices, circularity, and circular model.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is a literature research about drivers and barriers of circular economy adoption, which includes other literature reviews - next to empirical papers. This is a topic which is already well-researched, and I am afraid that this study does not bring novelty, not by bringing new insights or data, not by challenging previous publications. It sums up what is already known and claims that this is a macro analysis, without even explaining what a macro analysis is and why it is needed. Critical thinking is missing in this paper, which can be detected in the lack of critiques on circular economy as well the lacking discussion.

1. INTRODUCTION

The introduction is weak.

L36. The authors state "despite CE studies, there is a lack of investigation in the literature regarding a macro analysis of the drivers and barriers to CE adoption". I am missing...

a) a short introduction what you mean with macro-analysis

b) and why we need this. Circular economy is about multi-level thinking, where systems thinking is key. There might be a reason why we should not generalise and categorise across sectors and systems.

You can add some more nuance and enrich the papers by weaving further on the missing gap and novelty. For example, please explain the differences with the following (missing) references:

Elia, V., Gnoni, M.G. and Tornese, F., 2020. Evaluating the adoption of circular economy practices in industrial supply chains: An empirical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273, p.122966.

Mishra, R., Singh, R.K. and Govindan, K., 2022. Barriers to the adoption of circular economy practices in micro, small and medium enterprises: instrument development, measurement and validation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 351, p.131389.

What is your research question(s)?

2. THEORETICAL BIASES

L50. Add nuance. Not two material flows, but two types of material flows.

L44-78: This is a general description of circular economy, without any critical thought about the contested concept of circular economy. Analyzing the critique on CE might already hint why there is (no) CE adoption...

a) This should be a separate subsection 2.1. about circular economy and critique.

b) Some references to let the authors reflect on not taking CE as granted:

Friant, M.C., Vermeulen, W.J. and Salomone, R., 2020. A typology of circular economy discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 161, p.104917.

Corvellec, H., Stowell, A.F. and Johansson, N., 2022. Critiques of the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26(2), pp.421-432.

L79-: This is very short and a lazy form of describing what previous researchers have done. It would be interesting if the authors added a table, with columns explaining in which sector these previous researchers investigated CE adoption, their findings etc.. Especially as you claim you will go for a macro-analysis. Table 1 should be in section 2. This can be part of a subsection 2.2.

3.Methods

The steps are clearly explained. However...

L154 etc. The categories should be explained in the method section, not in the result section.

Did you do an inductive, abductive or deductive approach to your data analysis? How did you ensure the quality of your interpretations? see e.g.

Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L., 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational research methods, 16(1), pp.15-31.

On the other hand, the paper would benefit from a section (in Results) of bibliometrics. Table 4 should be re-worked in the right format, or visualised in a map.

The authors state that this is a systemic literature review (referring to Snyder). They follow the steps, however, a systematic literature review would also mean the identification of missing gaps. What are the missing gaps in current research? The authors are only summarizing what is known and do not really bring much novelty to the discussion.

Also, why did you include not more search words in a systematic literature search? You missed a lot of words that could be synonyms. In some other countries, they use other concepts than circular economy. See e.g. work by Friant et al. 2020.

4. Results and discussion

The authors sum up results in bullet points. The paper would benefit if the authors write out the different bullet points, adding more nuance and concrete examples.

The subsection Results and discussion misses a proper discussion. The authors share only results.

Author Response

Point 1: 1. INTRODUCTION

The introduction is weak.

L36. The authors state "despite CE studies, there is a lack of investigation in the literature regarding a macro analysis of the drivers and barriers to CE adoption". I am missing...

a) a short introduction what you mean with macro-analysis
b) and why we need this. Circular economy is about multi-level thinking, where systems thinking is key. There might be a reason why we should not generalise and categorise across sectors and systems.

You can add some more nuance and enrich the papers by weaving further on the missing gap and novelty. For example, please explain the differences with the following (missing) references:

Elia, V., Gnoni, M.G. and Tornese, F., 2020. Evaluating the adoption of circular economy practices in industrial supply chains: An empirical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273, p.122966.

What is your research question(s)?

Response 1:

In fact, there was confusion of language on the macro issue pointed out in the study. Given the review suggestions that you point out, and those from another reviewer, we have created a new paragraph describing the current state of knowledge and existing studies and we have worked on the research gap showing the novelty of our paper and differing it from the existing studies. We have also clearly pointed out the aim of the study. The new paragraph, introducing the reader to all these issues, was created. See below text inserted in the article:

Moreover, it included more recent authors to reinforce the research gap and the introductory approach of the article (Horbach & Rammer, 2020; Zhang et al., 2022; Arthur et al., 2023; Hojnik et al., 2023), and we have briefly mentioned the paper sections at the end of the introductory section for highlighting the research structure in responding to the research question.

Finally, regarding the missing references that you have mentioned, Mishra et al. (2022) developed, measured, and validated an instrument for barriers to the adoption of CE practices in Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), determining seven dimensions, but the drivers to CE adoption were not considered in this study. And, Elia et al. (2020) analyzed the relationship between the level of supply chain integration and the adopted CE strategies from the industrial field, not specifically drivers and barriers to CE adoption.

References:

Elia, V., Gnoni, M.G. and Tornese, F., 2020. Evaluating the adoption of circular economy practices in industrial supply chains: An empirical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273, p.122966.

Horbach, J., & Rammer, C. (2020). Circular economy innovations, growth and employment at the firm level: Empirical evidence from Germany. Journal of industrial ecology, 24(3), 615-625.

Zhang, Q., Dhir, A., & Kaur, P. (2022). Circular economy and the food sector: A systematic literature review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 32, 655-668.

Point 2: 2. THEORETICAL BASES

L50. Add nuance. Not two material flows, but two types of material flows.

a) This should be a separate subsection 2.1. about circular economy and critique.
b) Some references to let the authors reflect on not taking CE as granted:

Corvellec, H., Stowell, A.F. and Johansson, N., 2022. Critiques of the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26(2), pp.421-432.

Response 2:

According to your suggestions and those from other reviewers, we have done some corrections and reorganized the theory section, and divided it into two subsections making it more clear for the reader, as follows:

2.1 Circular Economy, and

2.2 Drivers and Barriers to Circular Economy

In subsection 2.1, some recent literature was considered in the text, and critiques on CE were also included. Both authors that you have suggested were considered. See below texts inserted in the article:

...becoming a popular discourse, especially in the government and corporate sector (Friant et al., 2020).

According to Zhang et al. (2022, p.656), CE is perceived as a substitute for the take-make-waste linear economy.

Subsection 2.2 regarding drivers and barriers to circular economy was rewritten adding more recent references from the theme (Arthur et al., 2023).

Regarding your suggestion about being interesting if we added a table, with columns explaining in which sector previous researchers investigated CE adoption, Table 3 presents the contexts of the application of driver to CE and authors from studies analyzed in the literature. And, Table 5 presents de contexts of application and authors of the studies of the barriers to the CE.

Finally, Table 1 was moved from the method section to the theoretical basis section in order to present the drivers and barriers categorization found in the literature.

References:

Corvellec, H., Stowell, A.F. and Johansson, N., 2022. Critiques of the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26(2), pp.421-432.

Zhang, Q., Dhir, A., & Kaur, P. (2022). Circular economy and the food sector: A systematic literature review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 32, 655-668.

Point 3: 3. Methods

The steps are clearly explained. However...

L154 etc. The categories should be explained in the method section, not in the result section.

Did you do an inductive, abductive or deductive approach to your data analysis? How did you ensure the quality of your interpretations? see e.g.

Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L., 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational research methods, 16(1), pp.15-31.

On the other hand, the paper would benefit from a section (in Results) of bibliometrics.

Table 4 should be re-worked in the right format, or visualised in a map.

Response 3:

In the new version of the manuscript, the ten categories are explained in the method section, not in the result section. Thus, we added the text below in the method:

The first category identified for the present study was the environmental category. Nohra et al. (2020) and Kumar et al. (2019) used the environmental category to present barriers to CE, and Tura et al. (2019) used the environmental category to present drivers and barriers to CE. In this way, the issues related to sustainability, the environment, waste management, recycling, and scarcity of resources were grouped in the environmental category.

The second category identified in the study was the supply chain category. Ritzén & Sandström (2017) used the supply chain category to present barriers to CE and Tura et al. (2019) used the supply channels category to present drivers and barriers to CE. In this sense, aspects from distribution channels, logistics, reverse logistics, and the potential to reduce channel dependence were grouped in the supply chain category.

The third category identified was the economic category. Gusmerotti et al. (2019), Nohra et al. (2020), and Tura et al. (2019) used the economic category to present only drivers, only barriers, and both (drivers and barriers) to CE. In this way, aspects involving finance, sales, profitability, revenues, earnings, costs, accounting, raw material costs and prices, and regulatory costs of environmental pollution and waste were grouped in the economic category.

The fourth category identified in our study was the information category. Nohra et al. (2020) and Masi et al. (2017) used the information category to present barriers to CE and Tura et al. (2019) used the informational factors category to present drivers and barriers to CE. In this way, the aspects like knowledge, information sharing, learning, training, and experiences were grouped in the information category.

The fifth category identified in the study was the legal category. Kumar et al. (2019) used this category to present barriers to CE in their article. The issues related to normative, regulations, and legislation were grouped in the legal category.

The market was the sixth category identified in the article. Kirchherr et al. (2018) and Guldmann & Huulgaard (2020) used the market category to present barriers to CE adoption. The aspects embracing external aspects to the organization, for instance, environmental awareness of consumers, consumer preferences, market demands, and market trends were grouped in the market category.

The seventh category identified was the organizational category. Several authors used this category in their studies: Guldmann & Huulgaard (2020) and Kumar et al. (2019) used it to present barriers to CE adoption, Jia et al. (2020) and Tura et al. (2019) used it to present drivers and barriers to CE adoption, and Govindan & Hasanagic (2018) used it to present drivers and barriers to CE adoption. The internal aspects, related to companies and commercial institutions like competitiveness, performance indicators, organizational culture, company policy, human resources, value and quality of products, raw materials and components, suppliers, partnerships, customer satisfaction, customer relationship, brand, and company image were grouped in the organizational category.

The public category was identified as the eighth category in this study. Geng & Doberstein (2008) used public participation as a category to present drivers and barriers to CE adoption. All issues related to the government, states, and municipalities, for instance, support, incentive, financial assistance, and public policies were grouped in the public category.

The ninth category identified in this study was the social category. Masi et al. (2017) and Kumar et al. (2019) used the social category to present barriers to CE and Tura et al. (2019) used it to present drivers and barriers to CE adoption. The aspects from the society and the community, involving job creation and reduction of the unemployment rate, population, public health, safety, hygiene, social responsibility, social projects, public awareness, social recognition, and stakeholders were grouped into the social category.

The tenth category identified in this study was the technological category. Ritzén & Sandström (2017), Kirchherr et al. (2018), Nohra et al. (2020), Masi et al. (2017), and Kumar et al. (2019) used the technological category to present barriers to CE, and Tura et al. (2019) used it to present drivers and barriers to CE. Geng & Doberstein (2008) used the technology category to present drivers and barriers to CE adoption. The aspects related to science, technology, technological, and innovation were grouped in the technological category.

Like almost all systematic literature review studies, our study does not specify the use of an inductive, abductive, or deductive approach for its data analysis. We understand that inductive inference is using specific observations to make broad generalizations, and that, in using inductive inference, the researcher first conducts a systematic investigation and then develops a structure based on the investigation findings (such as a framework, for example) (Hall et al., 2022). However, in the systematic literature review, and in our manuscript, the research question, keywords, and search strategy are defined in advance, and then the inclusion criteria for individual studies are applied (to decide whether the study should be included or not) (Xiao & Watson, 2019). Thus, to ensure the quality of the interpretations of our study, the following procedures were adopted: To ensure the quality of the interpretation, the drivers and barriers emanating from the literature were systematically organized according to Wolfswinkel et al. (2013), Xiao & Watson (2019), and Flores & Jansson (2022). In cases where there were doubts regarding the organization of drivers and barriers among the categories defined by the authors of this study, a discussion took place between the authors until a consensus was reached.

References:

Flores, P. J., and Jansson, J. (2022), “SPICe—Determinants of consumer green innovation adoption across domains: A systematic review of marketing journals and suggestions for a research agenda”. International Journal of Consumer Studies, pp.1-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12810

Hall, J.R., Savas-Hall, S. & Shaw, E.H. A deductive approach to a systematic review of entrepreneurship literature. Manag Rev Q (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00266-9

Wolfswinkel, J. F., Furtmueller, E., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2013). Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 45-55. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51

Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971

As suggested by the reviewer, Table 4 has been reworked. First, information from countries and regions, as well as the authors of studies that addressed barriers to the adoption of CE, were extracted from Table 6 and inserted into Table 4, in order to unify information on drivers and barriers in a single Table. Thus, Table 6 was excluded from the article. Second, for articles where the studies had been applied in Europe or the European Union, we tried to insert the name of all the countries where the research would have been applied. Only in two articles, the names of the countries were not informed (Ranta et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2019). Third, in order to better analyze the data, we have grouped the countries by continent. See attached the new Table 4 included in the manuscript (Table 4. Countries and regions whose articles on CE drivers and barriers were applied).

The identification of missing gaps was included, as indicated by the reviewer, in the introduction and conclusions. Thus, in the introduction, the research gaps to be investigated in this manuscript were added (already presented earlier). In the conclusions and discussion, the novelties of our study were reinforced, in particular, the theoretical gaps not covered by other studies. In this sense, we have added in the conclusions.

The use of terms other than circular economy, for example, was also considered (eg circular practices, circularity, and circular model). However, by the decision of the authors and in line with other studies (see below), we decided to use the most consolidated term in the literature. The same search strategy for systematic reviews, using only the term Circular Economy, was also used in the following studies:

Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) have used just the expression circular economy in their systematic literature review to analyze the drivers, barriers, and practices that influence the implementation of the circular economy in the context of supply chains.

Masi et al. (2017) have used the expression “circular econom*”. This paper conducts a systematic literature review (SLR) on the CE with two objectives: the first is to synthesize what goals and assumptions about the CE underpin the different strands of research on the meso-level, and the second is to assess the state of knowledge on SC configurations and their competitive environments within the CE.

Suchek et al. (2021) have searched the Web of Science for the keyword “circular econom*”.

According to Merli et al. (2018, p. 707), “Material collection was carried out through Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, which are the most comprehensive scientific databases… the generic keyword “Circular Economy” was employed as a research criterion in both databases. In WoS, the research criterion was “Topic” (Title, Author Keywords, Abstract, Keyword Plus®”.), while in Scopus was “Title, Author Keywords, Abstract”.

Kirchherr et al. (2018) have searched the studies for their manuscript in Elsevier's Scopus, Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, and Google with the keywords ‘circular economy’ and ‘barriers’.

This limitation pointed out by the reviewer was included in the limitations of the study and as suggestions for future studies (see text in the article):

References:

Govindan, K., & Hasanagic, M. (2018). A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: a supply chain perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1-2), 278-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1402141

Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J., Huibrechtse-Truijens, A., & Hekkert, M. (2018). Barriers to the circular economy: evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecological Economics, 150, 264-272.

Masi, D., Day, S., & Godsell, J. (2017). Supply chain configurations in the circular economy: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 9(9), 1602. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091602

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

Suchek, N., Fernandes, C. I., Kraus, S., Filser, M., & Sjögrén, H. (2021). Innovation and the circular economy: A systematic literature review. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30( 8), 3686– 3702. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2834

Point 4: 4. Results and discussion

The authors sum up results in bullet points. The paper would benefit if the authors write out the different bullet points, adding more nuance and concrete examples.

The subsection Results and discussion misses a proper discussion. The authors share only results.

Response 4:

We have reorganized the text in section 4 adjusting the bullet points, as suggested by the reviewer.

The discussion of the results was developed in the conclusion section of the present study. See below the new text added to the manuscript:

5 Conclusions

5.1 Contributions and Implications

The results of the study show that there are more articles in the literature presenting barriers to the adoption of CE than those presenting drivers to its adoption. Consequently, the study shows that there are more barriers in the literature than drivers to CE adoption. Thus, it is observed that the literature demonstrates a greater concern with what bars, prevents, or hinders companies and society to have a circular behavior, more appropriate with the current trend of concern with the scarcity of resources in the environment.

A summary of drivers and barriers to the adoption of the CE is presented in Figure 3.

Additionally, a new subsection was created in the conclusion section to contribute more to future research. See below the new text added to the manuscript:

5.2 Limitations and Future Research

The main limitations of this research refer to the number of bases used. Only the Scopus database was used to collect data. It is suggested that future studies use also other databases.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Its my pleasure to review this manuscript.

The theme of this study is within the scope of Sustainability Journal.

Minor revision is suggested to further enhance the content quality.

Rewrite the Introduction section. Read recent literature and then try to make it more interesting.

Clarify the objectives of this study?

Strengthen literature review section. The irrelevant references may be eliminated and recent and relevant references needs to be added.

What is the unique contribution of this study?

Rewrite the Conclusion section.

Proofreading of entire manuscript is suggested to ensure smooth flow of communication

Author Response

Point 1:

Rewrite the Introduction section. Read recent literature and then try to make it more interesting.

Clarify the objectives of this study?

Response 1:

Given the review suggestions that you point out, and those from another reviewer, in the introduction section, we have created a new paragraph describing the current state of knowledge and existing studies and we have worked on the research gap showing the novelty of our paper and differing it from the existing studies. We have also clearly pointed out the aim of the study. The new paragraph, introducing the reader to all these issues, was created. See below text inserted in the article:

Finally, we have added more recent literature in the introduction section, including also papers suggested by the reviewers (Horbach & Rammer, 2020; Zhang et al., 2022; Arthur et al., 2023; Hojnik et al., 2023) and we have briefly mentioned the paper sections at the end of the introductory section for highlighting the research structure in responding to the research question.

References:

Horbach, J., & Rammer, C. (2020). Circular economy innovations, growth and employment at the firm level: Empirical evidence from Germany. Journal of industrial ecology, 24(3), 615-625.

Zhang, Q., Dhir, A., & Kaur, P. (2022). Circular economy and the food sector: A systematic literature review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 32, 655-668.

Point 2: Strengthen literature review section. The irrelevant references may be eliminated and recent and relevant references need to be added.

Response 2:

We have worked on the literature review section in order to strengthen this section and also, make it more clear for the reader.

First, we have reorganized the theory section and divided it into two subsections making it more clear for the reader, as follows:

2.1 Circular Economy, and

2.2 Drivers and Barriers to Circular Economy

Second, in subsection 2.1, some recent literature was considered in the text, and critiques on CE were also included. See below texts inserted in the article:

...becoming a popular discourse, especially in the government and corporate sector (Friant et al., 2020).

According to Zhang et al. (2022, p.656), CE is perceived as a substitute for the take-make-waste linear economy.

Third, subsection 2.2 regarding drivers and barriers to circular economy was rewritten adding more authors, including recent references from the theme (Arthur et al., 2023).

Finally, Table 1 was moved from the method section to the theoretical basis section in order to present the drivers and barriers categorization found in the literature.

References:

Corvellec, H., Stowell, A.F. and Johansson, N., 2022. Critiques of the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26(2), pp.421-432.

Zhang, Q., Dhir, A., & Kaur, P. (2022). Circular economy and the food sector: A systematic literature review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 32, 655-668.

Point 3:

What is the unique contribution of this study?

Rewrite the Conclusion section.

Response 3: The conclusion was rewritten in two subsections: 5.1 Contributions and Implications, and 5.2 Limitations and Future Research. See below the new text added to the manuscript:

Conclusions

5.1 Contributions and Implications

The results of the study show that there are more articles in the literature presenting barriers to the adoption of CE than those presenting drivers to its adoption. Consequently, the study shows that there are more barriers in the literature than drivers to CE adoption. Thus, it is observed that the literature demonstrates a greater concern with what bars, prevents, or hinders companies and society to have a circular behavior, more appropriate with the current trend of concern with the scarcity of resources in the environment.

A summary of drivers and barriers to the adoption of the CE is presented in Figure 3.

5.2 Limitations and Future Research

The main limitations of this research refer to the number of bases used. Only the Scopus database was used to collect data. It is suggested that future studies use also other databases.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is interesting and original, as it provides insights on Drivers and Barriers to Circular Economy Adoption.

Below I would give some comments for better clarify the research path and structure in line with MDPI template (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions):

1. Introduction

The theoretical background is suitable for the aim of the paper, I would suggest to briefly mention the paper Sections for highlighting the research structure in responding to research question.

2. Materials and methods

Materials and methods could be better explained, I would suggest to insert a research methodology explanation specifying each research step able in responding to the research objectives (a graphic on research methodology approach could help). For every research step, please show tools and approaches used with literature references.

3. Results

Please, explain for every research step the results achieved.

4. Discussion and conclusions

The findings and their implications should be discussed also with limitations of the work highlighted. I would suggest to implement the discussion for each research step.

Author Response

Point 1: Introduction

The theoretical background is suitable for the aim of the paper, I would suggest to briefly mention the paper Sections for highlighting the research structure in responding to research question.

Response 1:

Attending to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have briefly mentioned the paper sections at the end of the introductory section. See below text inserted in the article:

The paper is structured as follows. Sections 2 and 3 are the theoretical basis and material and methods of the study, respectively. The fourth section presents the results and discussion of the paper. Finally, section 5 concludes the paper by presenting the implications and limitations of the study, and suggestions for future studies.

Moreover, considering the reviewer’s suggestions for the introduction section, we have created a new paragraph describing the current state of knowledge and existing studies and we have worked on the research gap showing the novelty of our paper and differing it from the existing studies. We have also clearly pointed out the aim of the study. The new paragraph, introducing the reader to all these issues, was created. See below text inserted in the article:

References:

Horbach, J., & Rammer, C. (2020). Circular economy innovations, growth and employment at the firm level: Empirical evidence from Germany. Journal of industrial ecology, 24(3), 615-625.

Zhang, Q., Dhir, A., & Kaur, P. (2022). Circular economy and the food sector: A systematic literature review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 32, 655-668.

Point 2: Materials and methods

Response 2:

The materials and methods were better explained in the manuscript. Thus, each of the four stages followed the structure of Wolfswinkel et al. (2013) and Flores & Jansson (2022). Especially in step 4 - Analysis through Data Coding and Structuring of Findings – there was a profound modification to ensure the quality of the interpretation. In this sense, we have explained the data coding and, mainly, the categorization of drivers and barriers, based on the literature review (see Table 1), and the motivation for choosing the categories of drivers and barriers (see Table 2), approaching this categorization to the main objective of the study.

We added in the article:

Point 3:

Results

Please, explain for every research step the results achieved.

Discussion and conclusions

The findings and their implications should be discussed also with limitations of the work highlighted.

I would suggest to implement the discussion for each research step.

Response 3:

The findings and their implications were discussed in the conclusion section. The limitations and suggestions for future studies were also discussed in the conclusion section. In this way, the conclusion was rewritten into two subsections: 5.1 Contributions and Implications, and 5.2 Limitations and Future Research. See below the new text added to the manuscript:

5 Conclusions

5.1 Contributions and Implications

The results of the study show that there are more articles in the literature presenting barriers to the adoption of CE than those presenting drivers to its adoption. Consequently, the study shows that there are more barriers in the literature than drivers to CE adoption. Thus, it is observed that the literature demonstrates a greater concern with what bars, prevents, or hinders companies and society to have a circular behavior, more appropriate with the current trend of concern with the scarcity of resources in the environment.

A summary of drivers and barriers to the adoption of the CE is presented in Figure 3.

5.2 Limitations and Future Research

The main limitations of this research refer to the number of bases used. Only the Scopus database was used to collect data. It is suggested that future studies use also other databases.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

the authors, in response to my comments, state that they have included my recommendations in Recommendations for Future Research as follows:

"Although the study does not aim to discuss drivers and barriers in different regions and countries, it is suggested that future studies take these local idiosyncrasies into account, since behaviors are different in each country or region, which makes it an important topic to be discussed.

I did not find such suggestions for the furure research in the body of revised paper. Generally, this part is underdeveloped and the authors did not suggest lines for future research. I would expect that, based on the type of paper the authors presenting. It is very strange that the authors respond to my recommendations, but then these recommendations are not in the paper. This usually leads to rejection.

Next, the authors should be more specific about the previous research and better describe their contribution - concretely.

The research gap is also not sufficiently described in the introduction. I still don't see how the authors' study is unique compared to other similarly focused studies.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks again for your time and attention in collaborating with our paper. See below in red our reply point by point regarding your comments. I hope to have answered all your requests.

Point 1:

The authors, in response to my comments, state that they have included my recommendations in Recommendations for Future Research as follows:

I did not find such suggestions for the future research in the body of revised paper. Generally, this part is underdeveloped and the authors did not suggest lines for future research. I would expect that, based on the type of paper the authors presenting. It is very strange that the authors respond to my recommendations, but then these recommendations are not in the paper. This usually leads to rejection.

Response point 1:

We are so sorry for this misunderstanding. We thought that what we have inserted in the text was enough (Although the study does not aim to discuss drivers and barriers in different regions and countries, it is suggested that future studies take these local idiosyncrasies into account, since behaviors are different in each country or region, which makes it an important topic to be discussed). Now we realized that we were wrong. For this reason and considering the reviewer´s comments, we have rewritten the recommendations for future studies. See below the new text added to the paper:

Although some studies have discussed the circular economy in specific regions e.g., in the Baltic States region (Ahmadov et al., 2022) and the central and eastern European countries (Prokop et al., 2022), the present study did not aim to discuss drivers and barriers in different regions or countries. However, due to the importance of countries having different behaviors, it is suggested that future studies take these local idiosyncrasies into account since behaviors are different in each country or region, which makes it an important topic to be discussed.

Point 2:

Next, the authors should be more specific about the previous research and better describe their contribution - concretely.

The research gap is also not sufficiently described in the introduction. I still don't see how the authors' study is unique compared to other similarly focused studies.

Response point 2:

Thank you for your reinforcement on this topic. We agree that the uniqueness of this study wasn´t clear. Now we rewrote some paragraphs in the introduction section, and it seems clearer. See below the new text in the paper:

1. Introduction

We live in an era of food, economic and social crisis, environmental pollution, growing awareness of social responsibility, sustainability, and concern for the environment, and heightened growth in some economies coupled with urbanization (Flores, 2022; Arthur et al. 2023). In addition, the continuous decrease in non-renewable resources, with the unceasing growth in the global population, pressures scholars and entrepreneurs to find new approaches to production and consumption (Lakatos et al., 2016). Insofar as the modern economy stakes on environmental protection, the pressure of environmental stakeholders especially on firms and policymakers is evoked (Arthur et al., 2023). From the construction of the perception that the current consumption patterns are part of the roots of the environmental crisis, the criticism of consumerism became to be seen as a contribution to the develop sustainable societies (Portilho, 2010). In this sense, the adoption of the Circular Economy (CE) is seen as one of the ways to solve this dilemma. The CE paradigm aims to attain sustainability by preventing environmental degradation and ensuring the social and economic well-being of the present and future generations (Zhang et al., 2022). CE has become a popular strategy to improve sustainability and a theme considerably researched over the past 5 years (Hojnik et al., 2023). Arthur et al. (2023) assumed that some CE variables have a significant impact on the environment, variables such as the level of materials considered as input factors for economic production, the amount of waste generated because of the extraction and usage of these materials, and the rate of recycling of the generated waste.

From a different perspective, while the terms Circular Economy and sustainability are increasingly gaining traction with academia, industry, and policymakers, and are often being used in similar contexts, the similarities and differences between these concepts have not been made explicit in the literature and remain ambiguous (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). However, Velenturf & Purnell (2021) suggest every actor should do their very best to develop a more sustainable CE, require research, and constant learning to ensure progress towards sustainability, even with imperfections.

The adoption of the CE allows the reduction in the consumption of raw materials, improves the brand image, encourages the emergence of new demands for services and new potential markets, reduces the costs and risks of emissions and waste, and increases the potential to attract new investors (Korhonen et al., 2018). Therefore, the CE approach has attracted the attention of many firms, enabling them to make the production process more efficient, especially when material and energy inputs become more expensive (Horbach & Rammer, 2020).

Considering the importance of the topic, a growing number of authors have explored the theme of CE, specifically drivers and barriers. However, some studies have focused only on issues that facilitate the implementation of CE (drivers) (Gusmerotti et al., 2019; Hartley et al., 2020; Robaina et al., 2020), other studies have focused only on factors that hinder the implementation of CE (barriers) (Dieckmann et al., 2020; García‐Quevedo et al., 2020; Guldmann & Huulgaard (2020); Kanters, 2020; Werning & Spinler, 2020) and some studies deals with both, drivers and barriers, but in specific contexts, e.g. supply chain (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; Masi et al., 2017), textile and apparel industry (Jia et al., 2020), small and medium enterprise (Mura et al., 2020) and buildings and infrastructure area (Hart et al., 2019), or in specific countries, e.g. Brazil (Jabbour et al., 2020), China (Xue et al., 2010), Taiwan (Chang & Hsieh, 2019) and Finland (Tura et al., 2019). Additionally, there are some studies in the literature that categorized only drivers to CE in the leather industry (Moktadir et al., 2018) and in the Italian economy (Gusmerotti et al., 2019); or, only barriers to CE applied to the Danish economy (Guldmann & Huulgaard, 2020), to the construction sector (Ababio & Lu, 2023) and to five European regions (Nohra et al., 2020), as well both (drivers and barriers) together applied to the built environment sector (Hart et al., 2019) and to the manufacturing sector in UK (Kumar et al., 2019). Moreover, Mishra et al. (2022) developed, measured, and validated an instrument for barriers to the adoption of CE practices in Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), determining seven dimensions, but the drivers to CE adoption were not considered in this study.

An in-depth and complete analysis of joining drivers and barriers to CE adoption is necessary, to enable a general application. Elia et al. (2020) analyzed the relationship between the level of supply chain integration and the adopted CE strategies from the industrial field, not specifically drivers and barriers to CE adoption. Thus, despite these studies already developed, there is a lack of investigation in the literature approaching drivers and barriers in a more detailed way, that could be applied to multiples sectors (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; Moktadir et al., 2018), to different markets (Barbaritano et al., 2019), distinct economies (Jabbour et al., 2020) as well different geographic contexts (Masi et al., 2017). Additionally, Jia et al. (2020) demand more databases to find relevant articles. In this sense, searching for a theoretical proposition, that can help to attend to such demands, this study aims to identify and categorize drivers and barriers to CE adoption for a general application.

The study contributes in different ways to research and practice in the CE field. It extends the body of knowledge on CE by assessing a significant number of papers that contain drivers and barriers to CE adoption, subsidizing researchers and practitioners with prior information about the realities that will be faced. It also helps in the planning for the transition from a linear economy to CE, making companies more efficient in resources and advancing toward sustainable economies (García-Quevedo et al., 2020). The results from D´Adamo & Gastaldi (2022) in the study regarding Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) showed that many sustainability opportunities have not yet been well explored. In this sense, CE adoption can be a way to achieve some of the SDGs, e.g., companies producing with more responsibility, encourage them, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices (goal 12) and reducing the environmental impact of cities, through waste management (goal 11). The study presents an extended literature review, enabling a broader view and a categorization of drivers and barriers to CE adoption. These contributions are important to help companies develop the CE and help the government get knowledge to work on public policies fostering the CE. Additionally, it would facilitate practitioners to understand the drivers and barriers to CE adoption to handle them effectively.

To summarize, the present study addresses the following research question: What are the drivers and barriers to CE adoption, and how to categorize them according to the literature?

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the responses and the revision. Most of my reponses were addressed. I read the paper carefully and cannot accept (et)

It is still not clear to me what the contribution of your research is. It still seems a summary, where you categorize. I did not learn something new. If I suggest, ask yourselves 1) what is the simple message (in one sentence) of the results of your literature research, and 2) for who is this message (government, other researchers, companies, insurance providers, banks)?

Subsection 5.2. should be expanded with more information about your next steps. I feel this is the first part of a bigger research project, and it would help to give some context why you just categorized all these drivers and barriers. What is the next step? Will you help writing a white paper or so - to government? And will this help you to understand what are potential barriers and drivers for convincing companies in your city, region, country to implement circular business models?

There is also the elephant in the room... It is kind of known that businesses cannot adopt a circular business model alone. Circularity implementation is a consortium or value chain development. Is it not wrong to sum up and categorize drivers and barriers (for businesses) while we have to look at constellations and assemblages of actors?

I see you cite the old paper by Kirchher. Check out the newest paper, where they revisit the circular economy:

Kirchherr, J., Yang, N.H.N., Schulze-Spüntrup, F., Heerink, M.J. and Hartley, K., 2023. Conceptualizing the Circular Economy (Revisited): An Analysis of 221 Definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 194, p.107001.

I appreciate that you start the mapped which studies were done in which countries, but novelty would be comparisons and discussions. This multi-level thinking and planning for circularity requires some comparison between places and systems. By generalising, your paper is ignoring that circular economy is political, spatialised, and embedded. Some papers:

Moreau, V., Sahakian, M., Van Griethuysen, P. and Vuille, F., 2017. Coming full circle: why social and institutional dimensions matter for the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), pp.497-506.

Verstraete, G., Adriaanse, J., Van de Wiel, E. and Hamers, D., 2022. Assembling Researchers in Design and the Humanities in a Circular Ecology. GeoHumanities, 8(1), pp.232-249.

Marin, J. and De Meulder, B., 2018. Interpreting circularity. Circular city representations concealing transition drivers. Sustainability, 10(5), p.1310.

Wuyts, W., Marin, J., Brusselaers, J. and Vrancken, K., 2020. Circular economy as a COVID-19 cure?. Resources, conservation, and recycling, 162, p.105016.

Malik, A., Sharma, P., Vinu, A., Karakoti, A., Kaur, K., Gujral, H.S., Munjal, S. and Laker, B., 2022. Circular economy adoption by SMEs in emerging markets: Towards a multilevel conceptual framework. Journal of business research, 142, pp.605-619.

Howard, M., Böhm, S. and Eatherley, D., 2022. Systems resilience and SME multilevel challenges: A place-based conceptualization of the circular economy. Journal of Business Research, 145, pp.757-768.

Ababio, B.K. and Lu, W., 2023. Barriers and enablers of circular economy in construction: a multi-system perspective towards the development of a practical framework. Construction Management and Economics, 41(1), pp.3-21.

(Some are examples explaining need for multi-level and place-based thinking to scale up CE, to get more companies and other actors in the CE-boat)

In fig 3, there are some categories like social, where you mention for example hygiene, public health and safety. That is interesting and might lead to new frontiers, because they are not explored that in depth. Perhaps you can add another subsection focusing on the under-researched categories and sub-categories. For example, what kind of future in-depth research do we need?

I am sure that you have a rich database, but what you present is a bit superficial, so you might want to distill more results, which have more depth, out of your database, and tell us something new.

Minor comments

L34-L35 This is not very nuanced. Please read the paper, where you will learn some will not see circularity as a way to sustainability...

Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M. and Hultink, E.J., 2017. The Circular Economy–A new sustainability paradigm?. Journal of cleaner production, 143, pp.757-768.

Velenturf, A.P. and Purnell, P., 2021. Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, pp.1437-1457.

L62 "However, an in-depth and more complete analysis of joining drivers and barriers to CE adoption is necessary. " Please add one sentence explaining why.

L70-L71 I am still confused about this micro-environment, especially because you mention the government. Are you not referring to a multilevel analysis? Multilevel analysis is advocated in sustainability and circularity implementation studies...

L72 etc - Second, this research brings sustainable benefits for companies and society since deals with aspects to foster the CE and aspects which make difficult he CE implementation, in line with the 12th Sustainable Development Goal - Responsible Consumption and Production

> > the sentence reads awkward.

L83 " help the government get knowledge to 83 work on public policies fostering the CE." >> It would be nice if you have recommendation for policies based on your results at the end of your paper.

L139 you acknowledge the critique of Corvellec et al, Friant et al. Please also explain how your paper is building FURTHER upon this critique. Now this subsection ends a bit with lose threads.

I am not a native English speaker, but I can recognise the akward sentences, typos, etc. I also often use an editor to help me to make the text more readable, and I think your text can benefit of someone (external) being an English language editor.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks again for your time and attention in collaborating with our paper. See below in red our reply point by point regarding your comments. I hope to have answered all your requests.

Point 1:

Thank you for the responses and the revision. Most of my responses were addressed. I read the paper carefully and cannot accept (et)

It is still not clear to me what the contribution of your research is. It still seems a summary, where you categorize. I did not learn something new.

Response:

Thank you for your reinforcement on this topic. We agree that the contribution of this study wasn´t clear. Now we rewrote some paragraphs in the introduction section, and it seems clearer. See below the new text in the paper:

Considering the importance of the topic, a growing number of authors have explored the theme of CE, specifically drivers and barriers. However, some studies have focused only on issues that facilitate the implementation of CE (drivers) (Gusmerotti et al., 2019; Hartley et al., 2020; Robaina et al., 2020), other studies have focused only on factors that hinder the implementation of CE (barriers) (Dieckmann et al., 2020; García‐Quevedo et al., 2020; Guldmann & Huulgaard (2020); Kanters, 2020; Werning & Spinler, 2020) and some studies deals with both, drivers and barriers, but in specific contexts, e.g. supply chain (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; Masi et al., 2017), textile and apparel industry (Jia et al., 2020), small and medium enterprise (Mura et al., 2020) and buildings and infrastructure area (Hart et al., 2019), or in specific countries, e.g. Brazil (Jabbour et al., 2020), China (Xue et al., 2010), Taiwan (Chang & Hsieh, 2019) and Finland (Tura et al., 2019). Additionally, there are some studies in the literature that categorized only drivers to CE in the leather industry (Moktadir et al., 2018) and in the Italian economy (Gusmerotti et al., 2019); or, only barriers to CE applied to the Danish economy (Guldmann & Huulgaard, 2020), to the construction sector (Ababio & Lu, 2023) and to five European regions (Nohra et al., 2020), as well both (drivers and barriers) together applied to the built environment sector (Hart et al., 2019) and to the manufacturing sector in UK (Kumar et al., 2019). Moreover, Mishra et al. (2022) developed, measured, and validated an instrument for barriers to the adoption of CE practices in Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), determining seven dimensions, but the drivers to CE adoption were not considered in this study.

Point 2:

If I suggest, ask yourselves 1) what is the simple message (in one sentence) of the results of your literature research, and 2) for who is this message (government, other researchers, companies, insurance providers, banks)?

Response:

The questions you proposed helped us to improve the research justification text, as you can see at the end of the introduction section. See the new text in the paper:

The study contributes in different ways to research and practice in the CE field. It extends the body of knowledge on CE by assessing a significant number of papers that contain drivers and barriers to CE adoption, subsidizing researchers and practitioners with prior information about the realities that will be faced. It also helps in the planning for the transition from a linear economy to CE, making companies more efficient in resources and advancing toward sustainable economies (García-Quevedo et al., 2020). The results from D´Adamo & Gastaldi (2022) in the study regarding Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) showed that many sustainability opportunities have not yet been well explored. In this sense, CE adoption can be a way to achieve some of the SDGs, e.g., companies producing with more responsibility, encourage them, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices (goal 12) and reducing the environmental impact of cities, through waste management (goal 11). The study presents an extended literature review, enabling a broader view and a categorization of drivers and barriers to CE adoption. These contributions are important to help companies develop the CE and help the government get knowledge to work on public policies fostering the CE. It is important to have a clear understanding of CE context in order to provide a common basis of assumptions and targets on which policymaking can be developed (Kirchherr et al., 2023) Additionally, it would facilitate practitioners to understand the drivers and barriers to CE adoption to handle them effectively.

Point 3:

Response:

You are right, this is a bigger research project, and we added an explanation about it at the end of 5.2 subsection, as follows:

This research is part of a research project focused on understanding how to promote an ideal structure of CE in the organic products sector. The next step of this research is to validate the drivers and barriers applied to producers and consumers in this sector. At the same time will be possible to verify if this general proposal can be applied to different sectors and markets.

Point 4:

I see you cite the old paper by Kirchher. Check out the newest paper, where they revisit the circular economy:

Kirchherr, J., Yang, N.H.N., Schulze-Spüntrup, F., Heerink, M.J., & Hartley, K. (2023). Conceptualizing the Circular Economy (Revisited): An Analysis of 221 Definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 194, p.107001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107001

I appreciate that you start the mapped which studies were done in which countries, but novelty would be comparisons and discussions. This multi-level thinking and planning for circularity requires some comparison between places and systems.  By generalising, your paper is ignoring that circular economy is political, spatialised, and embedded. Some papers:

Moreau, V., Sahakian, M., Van Griethuysen, P. and Vuille, F., 2017. Coming full circle: why social and institutional dimensions matter for the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), pp.497-506.

Verstraete, G., Adriaanse, J., Van de Wiel, E. and Hamers, D., 2022. Assembling Researchers in Design and the Humanities in a Circular Ecology. GeoHumanities, 8(1), pp.232-249.

Marin, J. and De Meulder, B., 2018. Interpreting circularity. Circular city representations concealing transition drivers. Sustainability, 10(5), p.1310.

Wuyts, W., Marin, J., Brusselaers, J. and Vrancken, K., 2020. Circular economy as a COVID-19 cure?. Resources, conservation, and recycling, 162, p.105016.

Malik, A., Sharma, P., Vinu, A., Karakoti, A., Kaur, K., Gujral, H.S., Munjal, S. and Laker, B., 2022. Circular economy adoption by SMEs in emerging markets: Towards a multilevel conceptual framework. Journal of business research, 142, pp.605-619.

Howard, M., Böhm, S. and Eatherley, D., 2022. Systems resilience and SME multilevel challenges: A place-based conceptualization of the circular economy. Journal of Business Research, 145, pp.757-768.

Ababio, B.K. and Lu, W., 2023. Barriers and enablers of circular economy in construction: a multi-system perspective towards the development of a practical framework. Construction Management and Economics, 41(1), pp.3-21.

(Some are examples explaining need for multi-level and place-based thinking to scale up CE, to get more companies and other actors in the CE-boat)

Response:

Thank you for your contribution. We have checked out the newest paper from Kirchher and considered it in our paper (Kirchher et al. 2023). Also, you will see that we adopted Ababio & Lu (2023) study. It was a very good contribution to our discussion, and the other ones helped us to understand that it was necessary to highlight the fact that, even though we didn´t classify the categories in micro, meso and macro levels, they are multilevel. As you can see in the paragraph we added in the conclusions:

It´s important to highlight the multilevel approach that these categories were constructed. Even though it was not the focus of this study, the allocation at the micro, meso e macro levels are evident, following the findings of Ababio & Lu (2023), which reinforces the current consensus that EC should be discussed in a multilevel approach.

Point 5:

In fig 3, there are some categories like social, where you mention for example hygiene, public health and safety. That is interesting and might lead to new frontiers, because they are not explored that in depth.  Perhaps you can add another subsection focusing on the under-researched categories and sub-categories. For example, what kind of future in-depth research do we need? 

I am sure that you have a rich database, but what you present is a bit superficial, so you might want to distill more results, which have more depth, out of your database, and tell us something new. 

Response:

Your suggestion was highly appreciated. Future studies were considered based on your suggestion. It would still be worth working on a study contemplating the less explored categories in the literature. Below is the text included in subsection 5.2 of future studies:

The analysis showed that there are some categories like social, for example, hygiene, public health, and safety, that are not explored in depth in the literature. So, future research could identify the less explored categories in the literature and explore them, leading to new frontiers.

MINOR COMMENTS:

Point 1: L34-L35 This is not very nuanced. Please read the paper, where you will learn some will not see circularity as a way to sustainability...

Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M., & Hultink, E.J. (2017). The Circular Economy - A new sustainability paradigm?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, pp.757-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048

Velenturf, A.P., & Purnell, P. (2021). Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, pp.1437-1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.018

Response:

We have considered the references suggested in the introduction section. See below the new text inserted in the paper:

Point 2: L62 "However, an in-depth and more complete analysis of joining drivers and barriers to CE adoption is necessary." Please add one sentence explaining why. 

Response:

The text was rewritten, as follows:

Point 3: L70-L71 I am still confused about this micro-environment, especially because you mention the government. Are you not referring to a multilevel analysis? Multilevel analysis is advocated in sustainability and circularity implementation studies...

Response: We are so sorry for this misunderstanding. The micro-environmental expression was removed from the paper.

Point 4: L72 etc - Second, this research brings sustainable benefits for companies and society since deals with aspects to foster the CE and aspects which make difficult the CE implementation, in line with the 12th Sustainable Development Goal - Responsible Consumption and Production

> > the sentence reads awkward. 

Response: We have rewritten the sentence in the text, as follows:

It also helps in the planning for the transition from a linear economy to CE, making companies more efficient in resources, and advancing toward sustainable economies (García-Quevedo et al., 2020). The results from D´Adamo & Gastaldi (2022) in the study regarding Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) showed that many sustainability opportunities have not yet been well explored. In this sense, CE adoption can be a way to achieve some of the SDGs, e.g., companies producing with more responsibility, encourage them, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices (goal 12) and reducing the environmental impact of cities, through waste management (goal 11).

Point 5: L83 "help the government get knowledge to work on public policies fostering the CE." >> It would be nice if you have recommendation for policies based on your results at the end of your paper. 

Response: According to your recommendations, we have added some recommendations for policies in the conclusion section, as follows:

Third, the presentation of an extensive literature review enabled a broader view and a categorization of drivers and barriers to EC adoption. These contributions are important to help companies develop CE and encourage them to implement CE. Also, contributes to helping the government to get knowledge to work on public policy implementation and actions to foster the CE. According to Schraven et al. (2019), the right incentives from the government should be created, like research funds or stimulating legislation. Yazdanpanah et al. (2019) support policymaking and fine-tune the regulations that foster the transition to a CE, for instance, due to a lack of regulations, firms may face no prohibition on the disposal of some particular (hazardous) wastes or may receive no incentives in case of substituting some of their raw material with reusable waste inputs. In this sense, the authors suggest that policymakers could introduce monetary incentives to foster them (Yazdanpanah et al., 2019). Furthermore, the study results would facilitate practitioners to understand the drivers and barriers to EC adoption to handle them effectively.

Point 6: L139 you acknowledge the critique of Corvellec et al, Friant et al. Please also explain how your paper is building FURTHER upon this critique. Now this subsection ends a bit with lose threads. 

Response:

We have reorganized and made some changes in subsection 2.1 as you can see in the paper. Also, a new reference was considered in the text (Velenturf & Purnell, 2021).

Comments on the Quality of English Language:

I am not a native English speaker, but I can recognize the awkward sentences, typos, etc. I also often use an editor to help me to make the text more readable, and I think your text can benefit of someone (external) being an English language editor. 

Response:

We worked during the 10 days received from the Journal to make all adjustments to the paper, and we didn´t have enough time to have the paper reviewed by the English language editor. But, in parallel with this paper’s resubmission to the Journal (second round), we are sending for an external English language editor in South Africa, where English is a native language.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

No other comments

Author Response

Thanks very much!

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

all my comments are answered and addressed in the revised manuscript. I am looking forward to read the next paper with the application.

Author Response

Thanks very much for your collaboration.

Article Menu

An Overview and Categorization of the Drivers and Barriers to the Adoption of the Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI