Next Article in Journal
Effects of Continuous Adoption of Artificial Intelligence Technology on the Behavior of Holders’ Farmland Quality Protection: The Role of Social Norms and Green Cognition
Previous Article in Journal
An Application Designed for Guiding the Coordinated Charging of Electric Vehicles
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 14
10.3390/su151410759
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

Impact of Circular Bioeconomy on Industry’s Sustainable Performance: A Critical Literature Review and Future Research Directions Analysis

by
Koppiahraj Karuppiah
1,
Bathrinath Sankaranarayanan
2,*,
Syed Mithun Ali
3 and
Ernesto D. R. Santibanez Gonzalez
4,*
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Saveetha School of Engineering, SIMATS, Chennai 602104, India
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education, Krishnankoil 626126, India
3
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh
4
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Talca, Los Niches km 1, Curico 3340000, Chile
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(14), 10759; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410759
Submission received: 10 June 2023 / Revised: 1 July 2023 / Accepted: 3 July 2023 / Published: 8 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Circular Economy Models and Applications for Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The circular bioeconomy (CBE) practice concept has demonstrated its capability in improving the industry’s performance. However, the impact of CBE practice on sustainable industrial performance is less analysed due to a poor understanding of the connection between CBE practice and sustainability. This study aims to carry out a systematic literature review (SLR) to understand whether CBE practice has improved the industry’s sustainable performance. Also, this study aims to expose the industries that are less covered under the CBE practice concept. An SLR has been performed to identify peer-reviewed articles that evaluate the impact of CBE practice in industry’s sustainable performance. A total of 38 articles published between 2015 and 2021 were subjected to descriptive and content analysis to arrive at new findings, research gaps, and future research directions. The descriptive analysis revealed that most of the articles reviewed were focused on agro-based industries and developed countries. The content analysis highlights that the lack of understanding, limited technological and financial support, and a well-established reverse supply chain network restrict industries from adopting CBE practice. To improve CBE acceptance, technological assistance and a well-established supply chain network are required. This study contributes significantly to the literature by providing better insights into CBE practice. Unlike earlier studies which mainly emphasise the positive side, this study reveals the challenges faced by the industries in adopting CBE practice. Also, this study interprets the synergy between CBE practice and sustainability.

1. Introduction

Besides enhancing human comforts, rapid industrialization and urbanization have also amplified the waste generation rate [1]. These generated wastes are often disposed into the environment without proper treatment, which possesses severe adverse environmental impact. In terms of hazard severity, industrial and urban municipal wastes are of the same intensity. Hence, waste management has become a matter of serious concern. Compared to municipal wastes, industrial wastes have become a major concern as it affects the environment in two ways. First, the input materials used in most industries are consumed directly from the environment in an uncontrolled manner. The exponential rate of resource exploitation has created resource scarcity [2]. Second, at the end of processing or product development, the wastes generated by the industries are directly dumped into the environment as landfills or incinerated without proper treatment. Thus, the industries on one side create resource scarcity and, on the other side, pollute the environment. The continuous decline in the environmental resource has created a question on the availability of resources for the future generation. Debates regarding resource scarcity and the need to safeguard the available resources have gained momentum only after the Brundtland Commission report (1987). Resource depletion and increased CO2 emission have increased the global temperature and brought several unbearable events like glacier melting and rising sea levels [3].
Such incidents alerted humankind to take appropriate steps in encountering undesirable events. The United Nations (UN) devised the sustainability concept and appealed to the member nations to incorporate the sustainability concept in industrial activities. In the successive year, the UN proposed the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of seventeen goals aimed at inclusive industrial and technological growth while conserving resources [4]. In achieving the seventeen goals and incorporating the sustainability concept in industrial activities, numerous practices, starting from lean practice, green manufacturing, circular economy model to finally circular bioeconomy practice, were developed and incorporated by the industrial community [5]. According to Carus and Dammer (2018), circular bioeconomy (CBE) is defined as the interaction of bioeconomy and circular economy that aims to produce bio-based products, utilize organic wastes, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Being the latest addition to the sustainability concept, the industries’ adoption and embracement of CBE practice are still at the infant stage. Further, as the CBE concept combines two distinct concepts, a severe misunderstanding exists in the industries. However, CBE practice is believed to have the potential to meet the SDGs proposed by the UN [6].
As CBE practice is believed to have a potential impact on sustainability, the number of research works related to CBE practice is growing steadily. Also, it should be noticed that since CBE practice relies on biological processing, most of the CBE studies are related to biorefineries or organic waste [7,8,9,10]. However, the inorganic wastes generated by the industries and society have harmful adverse environmental impacts. Hence, the potentiality of CBE practice in converting the inorganic wastes into value-added products must be explored.
Earlier studies suggest that the adoption of CBE practice positively affects sustainable industrial performance and helps meet the SDGs [11,12]. Moreover, many earlier studies emphasize the adoption of CBE practice by the industries by highlighting its positive aspects [13,14] and fail to recognize the challenges faced by the industries in adopting CBE practice. This study aims to develop a systematic literature review regarding the impact of CBE practice on industry’s sustainable performance. Also, research gaps in the existing literature are identified, and future research direction is suggested. To meet the study’s intended purpose, an in-depth analysis of various earlier published works is reviewed, and the sustainability parameters measured are also analysed. Based on the outcome, it has been analysed that whether CBE practice has improved the industry’s sustainable performance. The challenges faced by the industries in the adoption of CBE practice are also discussed. The following research questions are addressed in meeting the purpose of the study.
  • What are the results obtained by earlier studies regarding the impact of CBE practice in sustainable industrial performance?
  • What are the major areas focused on by the research related to CBE practice?
  • What are the future directions of research in CBE practice regarding sustainability?
The main contribution of this study is the investigation of the impact of CBE practice in the industry’s sustainable performance found in the literature. Further, various positive impacts of CBE practice in the industry’s performance are also analysed. In addition, the industrial areas that are majorly focused on earlier studies are recognized. Finally, this study highlights some of the industrial areas that are not focused on by the earlier studies. These contributions help better understand the CBE practice, their impact on sustainability, and the challenges faced by the industries in adopting CBE practice. Future research directions are given in the question form to guide further research works.

2. Research Method

In this work, a systematic literature review (SLR) has been performed to identify research articles that explicitly examine the impact of circular bioeconomy adoption in industry’s sustainable performance. The SLR method has been adopted in this study as it helps in analysing the research articles in a precise, transparent, and explicit manner. Furthermore, as multiple analysis phases are followed in the SLR method, it provides a deep interpretation of the research articles [15]. Therefore, in the present study, the steps followed by Xiao and Watson (2019) [16] are adopted, and the steps followed are explained briefly in the coming sections.

2.1. Scope Formulation

After the Brundtland Committee report (1987), the word sustainability has attained wider reach and has gained more attention from the industrial community. Synonymous to the warning of the Brundtland Committee report, the global environmental watch bodies have also voiced their fear of resource scarcity that is going to be faced by the future generation because of the present resources consuming trend [17]. Present industrial practice is against the definition of sustainability given in the Brundtland Committee report (1987) regarding resource consumption. Uncontrolled resource consumption has adversely impacted the environment and brought drastic climatic change, resulting in exponential temperature rise [18]. As temperature rise is a global problem and threat to the existence of humankind, the UN has urged the member nations to embark on sustainable industrial practice by giving up the conventional industrial practice. Regarding this, the UN has framed a set of 17 goals, together known as Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [19]. Many of these goals were related to the betterment of the environment. The UN has insisted that the member nations work to attain the framed goals. In the pursuit of attaining the SDGs, the policymakers, researchers, and industrial communities worked in tandem and devised some strategies (green, circular, and lean) and implemented them. The circular bioeconomy (CBE), the latest addition to sustainable industrial practice, has been widely preferred by the industrial community. According to Salvador et al. [20], CBE is an efficient bioeconomy practice that focuses on making products from bioresources and increases the useful lifetime of the products manufactured by keeping them in a closed loop. Hereby, CBE minimizes waste generation and the dependence on virgin products.
In recent times, CBE has gained great attention from the industrial sectors and nations owing to its potential benefits. Global nations view CBE as an entry token in the attainment of SDGs. It is believed that CBE contributes to some SDGs like affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), industry, innovation, and infrastructure (SDG 9), responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), and climate action (SDG 13). Hence, the embracement of CBE has become compelling. Moreover, CBE offers economic and environmental benefits by recovering bio-based wastes and turning them into value-added products. By doing so, pollution is prevented, and economic growth is ensured.
Earlier studies have analysed the impact of CBE adoption in the industries sustainability progress and advocated that CBE adoption will have a positive impact on industrial activities [21,22,23]. Also, these studies emphasized that to reap the advantage of CBE practice, industries need to bring in a holistic change in the industrial activity rather than a single isolated activity change. The industrial community are faced with many challenges in bringing the suggested holistic changes as it requires more financial investment [24]. However, it was argued that one-time capital investment would benefit the industry in the long run.
To summarize, the concept of CBE practice has already been discussed by various authors regarding its impact on sustainable industrial performance. However, the existing literature investigating this research topic still needs further examination as the impact of CBE practice in sustainable industrial practice is still unclear. So, this article provides a systematic literature review on the current status of CBE practice, reveals the impact of CBE practice in sustainable industrial performance, exposes the existing gaps and inconsistencies in the literature, and suggests future research directions.

2.2. Paper Selection Process

Considering the nature of the research question, the SLR approach is adopted. In this study, the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework is used to conduct an SLR [25]. Figure 1 illustrates the steps followed in the PRISMA framework for the SLR approach.

2.2.1. Research Plan and Information Sources

Sustainable industrial practice, being an imminent need of the society, this review work focuses on analysing the impact of CBE practices on industrial activity. For extracting the relevant literature, the following science databases are used: SCOPUS, Google Scholar, Web of Science, EBSCO, ProQuest, and IEEE Xplore. The number of search engines used in this study will reduce the bias and filter articles from a broad range [26,27]. Search engines used in this work are easily accessible and have been used in many earlier review studies [28,29]. In the research plan, keywords related to the two areas of this study are used: (i) sustainable industrial activity and (ii) circular bioeconomy. Then, search strings are formed by combining keywords from each category using Boolean operators “OR” and “AND”, and the search strings are applied to articles’ titles, abstracts, and keywords in the science databases aforementioned. The first substring “Sustainability AND industrial activity” ascertained the topical fit of studies that focused on sustainability. Next, the substring “industrial activity AND circular bioeconomy” helped to limit the studies motivated by circular bioeconomy. Finally, given the emphasis on the context of industries, a set of keywords (agro-industry, steel industry, sugarcane industry, and so on) are used.

2.2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

By applying the search strings given in Table 1 to the articles’ titles, abstracts, and keywords in science databases, initially 980 articles were found. The search was carried out from September 2021 to February 2022. According to [30], around 2015, the CBE concept was developed by merging the circular economy and bioeconomy concept. The term was increasingly used in research articles only since 2016. Here, the time for collecting research articles published online was set from July 2010 to July 2021. The number of articles got reduced to 954 after rejecting articles not in English and also those published in conferences and journals. Next, the review articles, duplicate works, and articles without exact keyword match are rejected for further analysis. This step has resulted in 92 articles that are sought for retrieval. Among the 92 articles, 15 articles did not have access to full papers. This has reduced the number of articles for further analysis to 77. These 77 articles were thoroughly reviewed by the authors individually to assess whether the purposes of these articles add value information to the research questions of this study. Here, 39 articles were excluded, and finally, only 38 articles were considered for final analysis. The inclusion and exclusion criteria followed are given in Table 2.

2.2.3. Data Extraction and Synthesis

After the successful retrieval process, the 38 articles were analysed to synthesize and extract underlying research themes and other aspects, such as industry sectors and geographical contexts. The initial number of articles and the final number of articles indicate that the CBE practice concept is still in the juvenile stage among academicians and research community. Also, the number of studies exploring the connections between CBE practice and sustainable development goals is minimal. Existing studies on CBE practice focuses on the financial advantage rather than a holistic advantage gained by the industries.

3. Literature Review Analysis

3.1. Descriptive Analysis

According to Prajapati et al. [31], the descriptive analysis of the articles offers a strong base for content analysis. Therefore, the final selected 38 articles have been categorized according to various criteria: Publication year, Source of Publication, Country focused, and Industry focused.
Figure 2 depicts the number of articles published over the years. From Figure 2, it is quite evident that the publication of research articles focusing on CBE practice is gaining momentum in a slow-paced manner. Also, it should be noted that from 2010 to 2016 not even a single article on the CBE concept has been published. The articles published in this period either address the circular economy concept or the bioeconomy concept and hence fail to meet the inclusion criteria, i.e., keyword circular bioeconomy. Even though the CBE concept was coined around 2015 [30,32], no research articles were published in that year and the next year. However, from 2017, there has been an increase in the number of research articles published relevant to the CBE concept. This increase in the number of articles published signifies the growing research interest in the CBE domain. The maximum number of articles in a year was 16 in 2021. The number of articles (27) published in the last two years (2020 and 2021) is higher than the number of articles (11) published in the previous three years (2017–2019). These findings seem reasonable since most of the sustainability research studies focus on CE practice and BE practice separately. During the last few years, studies have started measuring the sustainability impact of CBE practice.
Figure 3 shows the source of publication of the selected research articles. It should be noticed that most selected research articles were published in the journal sustainability. This journal is the source of six (16%) research articles selected for this study. It seems convincing since the adoption of CBE practice is mainly aimed at meeting the sustainability requirements, and hence, researchers aim to publish the articles in this journal. Next, the journals Energies and Forest Policy and Economics account for 11% each (four articles each). Then, the journal Bioresource Technology holds 8% (three articles) of selected research articles. This was followed by Agronomy, Resources, Conservation & Recycling, and Science of the Total environment, each accounting for 5% (two articles each) of selected research articles. The remaining articles are from 15 different journals, with one article each. The selected articles are from 22 different journals, and this indicates the impact of CBE practice in multiple domains.
Table 3 shows the demographic distribution of the selected articles based on the country focused on. As expected, nearly 84% of the articles focus on the applicability and embracement of CBE practice in developed countries. The majority of articles focus on Italy (13%), followed by Greece (10%) and European Union (10%). The remaining 16% of articles focus on the status of CBE practice in developing countries. It should be noted that 7% of articles are from Brazil, and China, the Philippines, and Malaysia account for 3% each.
From Table 4, the majority of the articles used a single research method. The use of multi-methods and mixed methods were scarce. As the integration of two different methods possess difficulties, single research methods are preferred over multi-methods and mixed-methods research. Bioprocessing studies were the most prominent, 20% of the total. It was followed by case studies and feasibility studies, accounting for 10% each. 6% of the articles used life cycle assessment research. Therefore, it is clear that most articles about CBE used bioprocessing as the key research method [33,34,35,36].
Figure 4 shows the distribution of the industries focused on in the research articles selected. Nearly 10 articles carried out the research work in a generalized manner and not in a specific industry-oriented manner. This reflects that these articles aim at analysing the possible impact of CBE practice in the industrial sector alone and not in a specific domain. When industry-specific articles are considered, nearly eight articles focus on the agro-industry. It was followed by biorefinery (five articles), energy sector (three articles), and power generation industry (two articles). Since biological processing is a part of CBE practice, most works are confined to biorefineries and energy productions. It is clear from this information that the CBE concept is converged into limited industrial applications [10,35,37], and its potential in other industrial sectors is needed to be analysed.

3.2. Content Analysis

This section analyses the selected research articles to understand how the CBE practice is applied and discussed. The following section provides a detailed explanation of the use of CBE practice in attaining sustainability.

3.2.1. CBE Practice and Sustainability

The fundamental principle of CBE practice is to recover value from the waste and extend the useful lifetime of the products as much as possible [21,38]. With CBE practice, it is possible to minimize the adverse environmental impact created by wastes from all kinds of industries. Adopting CBE practice will provide an opportunity for additional economic growth. More or less, the majority of the industries directly or indirectly depend on natural resources for industrial functioning. By utilizing the resources, the industries develop new products while eliminating waste. However, wastes generated by the industries are not properly handled and are dumped as landfills in most cases and, in some cases, incinerated. These practices are harmful to the environment. With the latest technological advancements, it is possible to recover value from the wastes. By doing so, the environmental burden is brought down while encouraging financial activity. In addition to the mainstream market, where the products are developed from virgin raw materials, the products developed through CBE practice helps in the creation of a secondary market [39,40]. The establishment of a secondary market will generate more employment opportunities and open new avenues in the business environment. For instance, when the secondary market is well-established, it will boost the related business activities. If the product developed through CBE practice is well received from the public, it will direct the supply chain network involved to be streamlined. Streamlining the supply chain network may bring in more waste material collectors and middlemen. The involvement of more waste collectors will increase competitiveness, which makes accessing waste materials easy. Thus, it paves the way for the uninterrupted supply of waste materials in a sufficient quantity.
Gusmerotti et al. [41] suggest that only the availability of a robust and reliable supply chain network will ensure the growth of a circular business model. Unlike the linear business model where the raw materials are manufactured and supplied by several well-established companies, it is difficult to identify the waste suppliers located then and there in the circular business model. So, it is essential to have a robust supplier for the circular business model in the long run. Adoption of CBE practice will be beneficial in attaining several SDGs. According to Venkata Mohan et al. [42], CBE practice directly impacts some of the SDGs like SDG 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15. Attainment of these SDGs will cover socioeconomic and ecological targets. Hence, it becomes mandatory for the industrial community to incorporate CBE practice in industrial activity.

3.2.2. CBE Practice and Its Area of Application

The need to apply CBE practice is very common for all the industrial sectors. Since all industries generate waste, it becomes essential to adopt CBE practice. Though the application of CBE practice is required in all the industrial sectors, it is mainly confined to biorefinery and agriculture applications. Among the 38 articles considered in this work, eight articles [9,33,34,36,43,44,45,46] are focusing on the possibility of increasing agriculture production and five articles [10,35,37,47,48] are focusing on the possibility of producing biofuels. The growing number of articles regarding biorefinery and agriculture denotes the rising demand from these domains. It seems obvious that the research interest increases depending on society’s needs. The quest for environmentally friendly fuel has been given great impetus for research in biorefineries. The need for biofuels is raised for two important reasons. First, overdependence on non-renewable resources has created the fear of resource scarcity. Hence, it is high time to develop and invest in alternate fuels. Secondly, the pollution caused by conventional fuels has also increased the demand for biofuel. These two reasons have accelerated the search for biofuels. Similarly, in the case of agriculture, the demand for agricultural products was raised with an increase in the global population. Also, pesticides have been cited as the reason for the increasing level of illness in society. Hence, the use of pesticides has to be reduced, and the quantity of agricultural production has to be increased. Also, the agricultural wastes generated are not handled properly. Either the agricultural waste is left as a landfill, or it is incinerated. The incineration of agricultural wastes increases air pollution. For instance, the agricultural wastes incinerated in Punjab and Haryana have been cited for the increased pollution level in Delhi [49]. Here, it should be noted that there is a need to identify a new source of biofuel on one side, and there is a need to handle wastes efficiently. In this situation, the application of CBE practice seems to be a viable option.
Using CBE practice, most of the research works focus on developing biofuels as it is the need of hour. For instance, one of the articles considered in this study [35] explored the possibility of producing biofuel and biofertilizer from the wastes generated by the brewery industries using CBE practice. In this work, Scenedesmus obliquus microalgae have converted the brewery industry wastes into biofuel and biofertilizer. In another study, ref. [50] embarked on the possibility of power generation using the rice processing residue, which is disposed of into the environment as waste. From this, it is well understood that most of the works related to CBE practice mainly focus on the conversion of agricultural waste and the food industry into value-added products. Since there is a huge demand for biofuels, research works are streamlined towards exploring the possibility of developing biofuels from wastes. Narrowing down the application of CBE practice to certain wastes restricts the possibility of exploring the potential of CBE practice in handling and converting waste into wealth. The prime intention of CBE practice is to minimize waste generations, extend the useful lifetime of the products, and recover value from waste to the highest possible extent. Hence, CBE practice must be applied in handling industrial wastes and municipal solid wastes.

4. Impact of CBE Practice on Sustainable Performance of Industries in Literature

This section discusses the CBE practice’s impact on the industry’s performance towards sustainability. So, the advantages and disadvantages faced by the industries in CBE practice adoption are discussed in the following sections.

4.1. Positive Impact of CBE Practice in Industrial Activity

The need to move towards more reliable and environmentally friendly techniques has resulted in the CBE practice concept. Over-dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels has resulted in resource scarcity and aggregated pollution levels. Adding to this, rapid industrialization and urbanization have increased the energy demand. Also, rapid industrialization and urbanization are generating many wastes [51]. These wastes are adding more pressure on the environment, and hence, these wastes have to be handled and utilized beneficially. In this view, CBE practice is the latest technique embraced by the industrial communities. In CBE practice, the discarded waste materials are viewed as potential renewable feedstock. By using the waste materials as the input feed material, waste generation is minimized, and the useful lifetime of the material is extended. Since most of the wastes generated by industries and humans are organic, it is possible to convert these wastes into value-added products with biological processing.
With the adoption of CBE practice, the industrial community has reduced waste generation to a large extent. Further, developing a new value-added product from wastes has opened the gate for new business avenues. The opening of new business avenues increases employment opportunities and industrial activity. Also, with the reduction of waste generation, the industrial community has established itself as a social concern business unit. Earlier, the industrial community was criticized for its unethical business activities. For the functioning of the industrial activities, the resources were exploited in an uncontrolled manner. The wastes generated during the industrial process were left directly into the environment without treatment. By adopting CBE practice, the industries have recovered value from the wastes generated and out of the wastes generated. To a possible extend, the waste has been used in value recovery. Thus, the number of wastes entering the environment has been decreased by a large extent.
The benefits of adopting CBE practice were best illustrated in one of the articles considered in this study. According to [7], by adopting CBE practice, the Portugal wood industry has used nearly 49% of wood wastes for energy production and 51% for material production. Thus, the wood industry is nearly moving towards zero waste generation. It has been indicated in the article that wastes from the wood industries are widely preferred for panel production. By using the wastes, the dependence on the raw material has been reduced drastically and deforestation has been prevented. A similar study by [23] also highlights the benefits of CBE practice in the fashion industry. Earlier, silk cocoons were used only for thread production by the Brazilian fashion industry. The wastes from the sericulture process are discarded as wastes. Hence, the use of silk cocoons was restricted only to silk production. By introducing CBE practice in silk production and using the wastes from the cocoons, energy was produced. Thus, in most cases, by applying any potential biological processing, the wastes from the industries are utilized to meet the energy demands. Though the energy produced does not meet the commercial needs, it may be useful in meeting some of the minor demands. In several countries, the chance of producing energy from renewable sources like the sun is not possible because of geographical positioning [52]. In such places, the best alternative to conventional fossil fuel is to produce energy using the CBE process.
Apart from industrial waste, household waste is also a valuable input feed in CBE practice. Loizides et al. [48], through a project called InnovOleum, collected the used cooking oil from the households in Cyprus and experimented with the potential of used cooking oil in biodiesel production. The household drain or landfill is prevented; thus, adverse environmental impact is also avoided. Additionally, the project InnovOleum provided a new job opportunity, i.e., collecting used cooking oil for unemployed youths. So, CBE practice preserves the environment and also generates a financial opportunity for society.

4.2. Other Impacts of CBE Practice on Industrial Activity

From the research articles analysed in this study, it has been found that the adoption of CBE practice largely benefits the industrial community. However, some studies explore the negative impact created by the CBE practice in the industrial activity. It should be inferred that much of the work related to CBE practice is being carried out in developed countries contexts (Table 1). These numbers indicate that the awareness of CBE practice is very scant and is still in the infancy stage in developing countries. In some places, the level of understanding of CBE practice is unclear and misunderstood. Making an attempt to execute CBE practice with such kind of poor and partial knowledge has drastic and worst impact on the activities of industries. To a large extent, technological differences between the countries determine the progress of CBE practice [53]. Technologically advanced countries are making an earnest attempt on CBE practice and can bear the loss if the attempt fails, or any negative outcomes are obtained. The case is entirely different in technologically underdeveloped countries, also economically developing countries. With limited technological infrastructure and capability, the CBE practice attempts made by the industries of developing countries are halted halfway. Also, if such attempts fail, the stakeholders involved in the business activity are reluctant to invest in the CBE practice attempts. Hence, the financial and technological capabilities of the countries are playing a major impactful role in the progress of CBE practice. A study by [20] clearly states that financial and technological infrastructure are vital components in establishing CBE practice.
Also, it has been found that despite the best attempt by the industrial and research community in developing products or alternatives to the existing products from the wastes, the response from the society is very disappointing. The perspective of society towards products developed from waste materials is completely different from the products developed using virgin materials. There exists a strong conviction that the quality of the recycled or remanufactured product is inferior to the quality of the product developed using virgin material [54]. Such perception among the society restricts the market penetration and creation for products developed through CBE practice. Insufficient market demand for the products developed through CBE practice has greatly reduced the interest of the industrial community in this practice [55]. Apart from being environmentally conscious, almost all industries are concerned with cost and benefits return. So, from a financial perspective, when the industries fail to receive favourable returns for the investment, they will start to rethink further investment on the strategy.
Another major problem that the industries engaged in CBE practice face is receiving sufficient input sources. In CBE practice, the input material used is already discarded waste materials. For getting enough waste materials, there needs to be a reliable and robust supply chain network. Unlike the forward supply chain network, the reverse supply chain network is not well-established. The problem related to the reverse supply chain is prevalent in both developed and developing countries. One of the reasons why reverse supply chain network is not well-established is that only a limited number of parties are engaged in the waste collection [56]. Further, the awareness of recovering value from waste is also limited in society. Most people prefer throwing the wastes in landfills or, in some cases, prefer incineration. However, the knowledge on the possibility of recovering value from the waste is scarce. So, the industries engaged in CBE practice faces an acute shortage of waste materials. Industrial management requires sufficient waste materials to develop a new product [57]. Therefore, the industrial community is faced with huge problems in the transition towards CBE practice from the linear manufacturing practice.

5. Discussion and Future Opportunities

This study aims to explore whether the adoption of CBE practice by the industrial community has improved the sustainable performance of industries by analysing earlier research articles on this topic. The main findings and future scope of this study’s research are discussed as follows.
Studies analysing the nexus between the adoption of CBE practice and the sustainable performance of industries have increased in recent years. Many research studies explored the potential of CBE practice in sustainable industrial practice by carrying out experimental studies as it reveals a clear picture of whether the CBE practice has reduced the carbon emission and recovered value from the waste. Though these kinds of studies help real-time capture results, a survey type of study will generate a generalized perception of the industrial community regarding CBE practice. Most of the experimental studies carried out are mainly focused on biomass processing and valorisation [7,8,9,10]. It was accepted that many wastes are produced by the food industries and other related industries. Since these wastes are organic in nature and hence by applying suitable bioprocessing techniques, the biomasses are converted into electricity. However, it is also notified that other industries are also generating wastes in large quantities that are more hazardous to the environment than the organic wastes generated by food and agricultural industries. So, it is expected that future studies from CBE backgrounds should focus on retrieving the value from the wastes generated by the petroleum industries, leather industries, cement industries, and other large-scale industries. Aside from merely focusing on recovering value from organic wastes, attention must also be given to recovering value from inorganic wastes.
Further, the CBE practice is only still in the nascent stage globally. Hence, there exists a misconception about this concept and also a wide variation is observed at the level of understanding of CBE practice. Additionally, there prevails a misunderstanding about the circular economy, bioeconomy, and circular bioeconomy concepts. Therefore, it is essential to explain these three concepts’ fundamental difference and area of application. Besides clarifying the myths, it is also necessary to explore the difficulties faced by the industrial community in embracing CBE practice. As discussed earlier, a gap exists between developed and developing countries at the level of adopting CBE practice [53,58]. When viewed at the macro level, the reasons for the gap may be differences in technological and financial capability. However, a microscopic level of analysis from developing and developed countries contexts may reveal more challenges of CBE practice. Qualitative research studies such as case studies and empirical analysis may help better understanding of the nature and complexity of the challenges faced by the industries in CBE practice. In understanding the difficulty level of the challenges, multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques can be used. To overcome the uncertainties in rating the challenges, fuzzy and grey concepts can be used in MCDM techniques.
Next, most of the studies primarily focus on the potential of CBE practice. Indeed, it was acceptable that the CBE practice would soon find its place in all domains. So, it is, therefore, necessary to carry out forecasting parameters’ studies regarding the quantity of waste materials required for carrying out CBE practice. For instance, if bioplastic is the future, it is necessary to have an early prediction on how much quantity of plastic waste is required to meet bioplastic demand. A study by [59] regarding plastic waste management underscored that plastic was viewed as a friendly material at once due to its use in all new technological advancements. However, the recent number of surveys states that a vast difference exists between the rate of plastic production and plastic recycling. The same statistics apply to the entire production field. So, it is indispensable to carry out a forecasting study regarding the quantity of waste generated, the quantity of waste recovered, and the quantity of waste required for CBE practice.
Overall, the CBE practice is anticipated to have some positive impacts regarding the environmental performance of industries. Also, CBE practice is expected to help move towards sustainable development goals. However, some studies show that the adoption of CBE practice by industries remains a major challenge, and the limited availability of expertise further hamper the embracement of CBE practice. From this, it should be understood that despite the many benefits offered, there are many challenges faced by the industrial community in adopting CBE practice. In spreading the CBE practice, the government has to take some initiatives and responsibilities. Sufficient technological and financial assistance needs to be provided by the government. There is sufficient scope for future research on adopting the multifaceted CBE concept. This study raises some questions as follows that may offer future research opportunities.
  • What is the role of government in disseminating the CBE practice and making the industries adopt CBE practice?
  • What is the status of CBE practice in all countries?
  • Why is the CBE practice primarily applied in the food and agriculture industries and not in other industries?

6. Conclusions

This research work contributes significantly to the literature on CBE practice by providing a systematic literature review of the existing literature that addresses the nexus between CBE practice and sustainable performance of industries. In addition, the findings of this study offer some new insights for future research work.
In this study, 38 research articles published between 2015 and 2021 were reviewed and analysed. Both descriptive and content analysis were performed on these articles. The analysis focused on the year of publication, source of publication, countries examined, and industries studied. The findings of the study indicate that the highest number of articles, 16 in total, were published in 2021. The journal “Sustainability” had the highest number of publications, accounting for six articles. Approximately 13% of the CBE practice studies originated from Italy. Agro-industries were the most frequently studied sector in relation to CBE practice, with eight articles dedicated to this area.
The content analysis highlighted the significant potential of CBE practice in enhancing the sustainable performance of industries, thereby contributing to a country’s progress towards achieving the SDGs. However, several factors hinder the adoption of CBE practice. These include a lack of technological advancements, limited financial support, and a poor understanding of the concept within society. Additionally, the establishment of a well-functioning reverse supply chain network is crucial as it determines the quantity of waste that can be collected to meet the demand. Therefore, it is essential to prioritize the development of a reliable and robust reverse supply chain network as an initial step. Furthermore, it is recommended to extend the application of the CBE practice concept to all industries, rather than confining it solely to organic-based sectors.
This study has some limitations that need to be admitted. Here, only the articles that focus on CBE practice alone are considered and analysed. Also, review articles, short communications, conference proceedings, and these were not considered in this work. So, future work can be carried out by including review articles and conference proceedings. Based on the outcomes, the study suggests some future research directions. These research directions will guide scholars and other research communities in taking forward the research regarding CBE practice.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.K. and B.S.; methodology, K.K.; software, B.S.; validation, K.K., B.S. and S.M.A.; formal analysis, B.S.; investigation, S.M.A.; resources, E.D.R.S.G.; data curation, K.K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K.; writing—review and editing, B.S. and S.M.A.; visualization, K.K.; supervision, S.M.A. and B.S.; project administration, B.S. and S.M.A.; funding acquisition, E.D.R.S.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments that allowed to further enhance the outcome of this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gaur, V.K.; Sharma, P.; Sirohi, R.; Awasthi, M.K.; Dussap, C.-G.; Pandey, A. Assessing the Impact of Industrial Waste on Environment and Mitigation Strategies: A Comprehensive Review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 398, 123019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ahmed, Z.; Le, H.P.; Shahzad, S.J.H. Toward Environmental Sustainability: How Do Urbanization, Economic Growth, and Industrialization Affect Biocapacity in Brazil? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 24, 11676–11696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ekwurzel, B.; Boneham, J.; Dalton, M.W.; Heede, R.; Mera, R.J.; Allen, M.R.; Frumhoff, P.C. The Rise in Global Atmospheric CO2, Surface Temperature, and Sea Level from Emissions Traced to Major Carbon Producers. Clim. Chang. 2017, 144, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Hajian, M.; Jangchi Kashani, S. Evolution of the Concept of Sustainability. From Brundtland Report to Sustainable Development Goals. In Sustainable Resource Management; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ngan, S.L.; How, B.S.; Teng, S.Y.; Promentilla, M.A.B.; Yatim, P.; Er, A.C.; Lam, H.L. Prioritization of Sustainability Indicators for Promoting the Circular Economy: The Case of Developing Countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 111, 314–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Carus, M.; Dammer, L. The Circular Bioeconomy—Concepts, Opportunities, and Limitations. Ind. Biotechnol. 2018, 14, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gonçalves, M.; Freire, F.; Garcia, R. Material Flow Analysis of Forest Biomass in Portugal to Support a Circular Bioeconomy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 169, 105507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Awasthi, M.K.; Sarsaiya, S.; Patel, A.; Juneja, A.; Singh, R.P.; Yan, B.; Awasthi, S.K.; Jain, A.; Liu, T.; Duan, Y.; et al. Refining Biomass Residues for Sustainable Energy and Bio-Products: An Assessment of Technology, Its Importance, and Strategic Applications in Circular Bio-Economy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 127, 109876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Duque-Acevedo, M.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; Plaza-Úbeda, J.A.; Camacho-Ferre, F. The Management of Agricultural Waste Biomass in the Framework of Circular Economy and Bioeconomy: An Opportunity for Greenhouse Agriculture in Southeast Spain. Agronomy 2020, 10, 489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Ioannidou, S.M.; Pateraki, C.; Ladakis, D.; Papapostolou, H.; Tsakona, M.; Vlysidis, A.; Kookos, I.K.; Koutinas, A. Sustainable Production of Bio-Based Chemicals and Polymers via Integrated Biomass Refining and Bioprocessing in a Circular Bioeconomy Context. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 307, 123093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kostas, E.T.; Adams, J.M.M.; Ruiz, H.A.; Durán-Jiménez, G.; Lye, G.J. Macroalgal Biorefinery Concepts for the Circular Bioeconomy: A Review on Biotechnological Developments and Future Perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 151, 111553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rodriguez-Anton, J.M.; Rubio-Andrada, L.; Celemín-Pedroche, M.S.; Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M. Analysis of the Relations between Circular Economy and Sustainable Development Goals. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2019, 26, 708–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Madadian, E.; Haelssig, J.B.; Mohebbi, M.; Pegg, M. From Biorefinery Landfills towards a Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy: A Techno-Economic and Environmental Analysis in Atlantic Canada. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 296, 126590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Al-Mawali, K.S.; Osman, A.I.; Al-Muhtaseb, A.H.; Mehta, N.; Jamil, F.; Mjalli, F.; Vakili-Nezhaad, G.R.; Rooney, D.W. Life Cycle Assessment of Biodiesel Production Utilising Waste Date Seed Oil and a Novel Magnetic Catalyst: A Circular Bioeconomy Approach. Renew. Energy 2021, 170, 832–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dieste, M.; Panizzolo, R.; Garza-Reyes, J.A. A Systematic Literature Review Regarding the Influence of Lean Manufacturing on Firms’ Financial Performance. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2021, 32, 101–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Xiao, Y.; Watson, M. Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2019, 39, 93–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kuhlman, T.; Farrington, J. What Is Sustainability? Sustainability 2010, 2, 3436–3448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Liu, Y.; Villalba, G.; Ayres, R.U.; Schroder, H. Global Phosphorus Flows and Environmental Impacts from a Consumption Perspective. J. Ind. Ecol. 2008, 12, 229–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mondini, G. Sustainability Assessment: From Brundtland Report to Sustainable Development Goals. Valori e Valutazioni 2019, 2019, 129–137. [Google Scholar]
  20. Salvador, R.; Puglieri, F.N.; Halog, A.; de Andrade, F.G.; Piekarski, C.M.; De Francisco, A.C. Key Aspects for Designing Business Models for a Circular Bioeconomy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 124341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Muscat, A.; de Olde, E.M.; Ripoll-Bosch, R.; Van Zanten, H.H.E.; Metze, T.A.P.; Termeer, C.J.A.M.; van Ittersum, M.K.; de Boer, I.J.M. Principles, Drivers and Opportunities of a Circular Bioeconomy. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 561–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Giampietro, M. On the Circular Bioeconomy and Decoupling: Implications for Sustainable Growth. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 162, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Barcelos, S.M.B.D.; Salvador, R.; Barros, M.V.; de Francisco, A.C.; Guedes, G. Circularity of Brazilian Silk: Promoting a Circular Bioeconomy in the Production of Silk Cocoons. J. Environ. Manage. 2021, 296, 113373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Näyhä, A. Finnish Forest-Based Companies in Transition to the Circular Bioeconomy—Drivers, Organizational Resources and Innovations. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 110, 101936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Wijewickrama, M.K.C.S.; Chileshe, N.; Rameezdeen, R.; Ochoa, J.J. Information Sharing in Reverse Logistics Supply Chain of Demolition Waste: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. dos Santos, B.S.; Steiner, M.T.A.; Fenerich, A.T.; Lima, R.H.P. Data Mining and Machine Learning Techniques Applied to Public Health Problems: A Bibliometric Analysis from 2009 to 2018. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 138, 106120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Khan, I.S.; Ahmad, M.O.; Majava, J. Industry 4.0 and Sustainable Development: A Systematic Mapping of Triple Bottom Line, Circular Economy and Sustainable Business Models Perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Stegmann, P.; Londo, M.; Junginger, M. The Circular Bioeconomy: Its Elements and Role in European Bioeconomy Clusters. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. X 2020, 6, 100029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Prajapati, H.; Kant, R.; Shankar, R. Bequeath Life to Death: State-of-Art Review on Reverse Logistics. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 503–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Batrancea, L.M. An Econometric Approach on Performance, Assets, and Liabilities in a Sample of Banks from Europe, Israel, United States of America, and Canada. Mathematics 2021, 9, 3178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bin Azmi, A.A.; Chew, K.W.; Chia, W.Y.; Mubashir, M.; Sankaran, R.; Lam, M.K.; Lim, J.W.; Ho, Y.-C.; Show, P.L. Green Bioprocessing of Protein from Chlorella Vulgaris Microalgae towards Circular Bioeconomy. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 333, 125197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Carlozzi, P.; Touloupakis, E.; Di Lorenzo, T.; Giovannelli, A.; Seggiani, M.; Cinelli, P.; Lazzeri, A. Whey and Molasses as Inexpensive Raw Materials for Parallel Production of Biohydrogen and Polyesters via a Two-Stage Bioprocess: New Routes towards a Circular Bioeconomy. J. Biotechnol. 2019, 303, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ferreira, A.; Ribeiro, B.; Ferreira, A.F.; Tavares, M.L.A.; Vladic, J.; Vidović, S.; Cvetkovic, D.; Melkonyan, L.; Avetisova, G.; Goginyan, V.; et al. Scenedesmus Obliquus Microalga-based Biorefinery—From Brewery Effluent to Bioactive Compounds, Biofuels and Biofertilizers—Aiming at a Circular Bioeconomy. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 2019, 13, 1169–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Neczaj, E.; Grosser, A.; Grobelak, A.; Celary, P.; Singh, B.R. Conversion of Sewage Sludge and Other Biodegradable Waste into High-Value Soil Amendment within a Circular Bioeconomy Perspective. Energies 2021, 14, 6953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lokesh, K.; Ladu, L.; Summerton, L. Bridging the Gaps for a ‘Circular’ Bioeconomy: Selection Criteria, Bio-Based Value Chain and Stakeholder Mapping. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Batrancea, L. An Econometric Approach Regarding the Impact of Fiscal Pressure on Equilibrium: Evidence from Electricity, Gas and Oil Companies Listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Mathematics 2021, 9, 630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Donner, M.; Vries, H. How to Innovate Business Models for a Circular Bio-economy? Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2021, 30, 1932–1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Batrancea, L.M.; Balcı, M.A.; Akgüller, Ö.; Gaban, L. What Drives Economic Growth across European Countries? A Multimodal Approach. Mathematics 2022, 10, 3660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gusmerotti, N.M.; Testa, F.; Corsini, F.; Pretner, G.; Iraldo, F. Drivers and Approaches to the Circular Economy in Manufacturing Firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 314–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Venkata Mohan, S.; Dahiya, S.; Amulya, K.; Katakojwala, R.; Vanitha, T.K. Can Circular Bioeconomy Be Fueled by Waste Biorefineries—A Closer Look. Bioresour. Technol. Reports 2019, 7, 100277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cattaneo, C.; Marull, J.; Tello, E. Landscape Agroecology. The Dysfunctionalities of Industrial Agriculture and the Loss of the Circular Bioeconomy in the Barcelona Region, 1956–2009. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Ladu, L.; Imbert, E.; Quitzow, R.; Morone, P. The Role of the Policy Mix in the Transition toward a Circular Forest Bioeconomy. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 110, 101937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Overturf, E.; Ravasio, N.; Zaccheria, F.; Tonin, C.; Patrucco, A.; Bertini, F.; Canetti, M.; Avramidou, K.; Speranza, G.; Bavaro, T.; et al. Towards a More Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy. Innovative Approaches to Rice Residue Valorization: The RiceRes Case Study. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2020, 11, 100427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Feleke, S.; Cole, S.M.; Sekabira, H.; Djouaka, R.; Manyong, V. Circular Bioeconomy Research for Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Innovations, Gaps, and Actions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ferreira, A.; Marques, P.; Ribeiro, B.; Assemany, P.; de Mendonça, H.V.; Barata, A.; Oliveira, A.C.; Reis, A.; Pinheiro, H.M.; Gouveia, L. Combining Biotechnology with Circular Bioeconomy: From Poultry, Swine, Cattle, Brewery, Dairy and Urban Wastewaters to Biohydrogen. Environ. Res. 2018, 164, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Loizides, M.; Loizidou, X.; Orthodoxou, D.; Petsa, D. Circular Bioeconomy in Action: Collection and Recycling of Domestic Used Cooking Oil through a Social, Reverse Logistics System. Recycling 2019, 4, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Sahu, S.K.; Mangaraj, P.; Beig, G.; Samal, A.; Pradhan, C.; Dash, S.; Tyagi, B. Quantifying the High Resolution Seasonal Emission of Air Pollutants from Crop Residue Burning in India. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 286, 117165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Almpantis, D.; Zabaniotou, A. Technological Solutions and Tools for Circular Bioeconomy in Low-Carbon Transition: Simulation Modeling of Rice Husks Gasification for CHP by Aspen PLUS V9 and Feasibility Study by Aspen Process Economic Analyzer. Energies 2021, 14, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Venkata Mohan, S.; Nikhil, G.N.; Chiranjeevi, P.; Nagendranatha Reddy, C.; Rohit, M.V.; Kumar, A.N.; Sarkar, O. Waste Biorefinery Models towards Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy: Critical Review and Future Perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 215, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mussard, M. Solar Energy under Cold Climatic Conditions: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 74, 733–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Awasthi, M.K.; Sarsaiya, S.; Wainaina, S.; Rajendran, K.; Kumar, S.; Quan, W.; Duan, Y.; Awasthi, S.K.; Chen, H.; Pandey, A.; et al. A Critical Review of Organic Manure Biorefinery Models toward Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy: Technological Challenges, Advancements, Innovations, and Future Perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 111, 115–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gottinger, A.; Ladu, L.; Quitzow, R. Studying the Transition towards a Circular Bioeconomy—A Systematic Literature Review on Transition Studies and Existing Barriers. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pretner, G.; Darnall, N.; Testa, F.; Iraldo, F. Are Consumers Willing to Pay for Circular Products? The Role of Recycled and Second-Hand Attributes, Messaging, and Third-Party Certification. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 175, 105888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Xu, Z.; Elomri, A.; Pokharel, S.; Zhang, Q.; Ming, X.G.; Liu, W. Global Reverse Supply Chain Design for Solid Waste Recycling under Uncertainties and Carbon Emission Constraint. Waste Manag. 2017, 64, 358–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Saxena, N.; Sarkar, B.; Singh, S.R. Selection of Remanufacturing/Production Cycles with an Alternative Market: A Perspective on Waste Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Negi, S.; Hu, A.; Kumar, S. Circular Bioeconomy: Countries’ Case Studies. In Biomass, Biofuels, Biochemicals; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 721–748. [Google Scholar]
  59. Klemeš, J.J.; Van Fan, Y.; Jiang, P. Plastics: Friends or Foes? The Circularity and Plastic Waste Footprint. Energy Sources Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 2021, 43, 1549–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 10759 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for the review process.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for the review process.
Sustainability 15 10759 g001
Sustainability 15 10759 g002 550
Figure 2. Article classification by year of publication.
Figure 2. Article classification by year of publication.
Sustainability 15 10759 g002
Sustainability 15 10759 g003 550
Figure 3. Article classification by the source of publication (Period of analyses: 2015–2022).
Figure 3. Article classification by the source of publication (Period of analyses: 2015–2022).
Sustainability 15 10759 g003
Sustainability 15 10759 g004 550
Figure 4. Article classification by industry focused on (Period of analyses: 2015–2022).
Figure 4. Article classification by industry focused on (Period of analyses: 2015–2022).
Sustainability 15 10759 g004
Table
Table 1. Search strings used for systematic review.
Table 1. Search strings used for systematic review.
Component of Review TopicKeywords and Substrings
Sustainable industrial activity“Sustainability” AND “Industrial activity”
AND
Circular bioeconomy“Circular bioeconomy” OR “CBE practices”
AND
Industries“Agro-industry” OR “Steel industry” OR “Sugarcane industry” OR “Energy industry” OR “Fashion industry”
Table
Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria
Include peer-reviewed journal articles that contribute to any or all of the research questionsExclude articles not written in English language
Include articles focusing on circular bioeconomy practices Exclude review articles
Exclude conference proceedings, book chapters, theses, letters, short surveys, conference reviews, notes, and editorial papers
Exclude papers that focuses either on circular economy or bioeconomy individually
Table
Table 3. Distribution of the selected articles based on the country focused on (Period of analyses: 2015–2022).
Table 3. Distribution of the selected articles based on the country focused on (Period of analyses: 2015–2022).
Country Number of ArticlesPercentage (%)
Chile13
Portugal13
Greece410
Brazil37
China13
Spain37
Poland37
Italy513
Finland25
Denmark13
Cyprus13
United Kingdom13
European Union410
Sweden13
Sub-Saharan Africa13
Philippines13
Colombia13
Ireland13
Malaysia13
Global study25
Developed countries3284
Developing countries616
Table
Table 4. Research methods used in the selected articles (Period of analyses: 2015–2022).
Table 4. Research methods used in the selected articles (Period of analyses: 2015–2022).
Research MethodsNumber of ArticlesPercentage (%)
Mono-method Research2976
Material Flow Analysis13
Bibliometric Study13
Case Study410
Feasibility Study410
Experimental Study820
Econometric Model13
SWOT Analysis13
Fuzzy Cognitive Map Modelling13
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method13
Risk Assessment Study13
Pilot Study13
Life Cycle Assessment36
Thematic Interviews13
Property Study13
Multi-Methods Research513
Case Study and Modelling13
Desk Study and Case Study13
Modelling and Life Cycle Assessment13
Simulation and Feasibility Study13
Fuzzy Cognitive Map Modelling and Simulation13
Mixed-Methods Research411
Questionnaire and Telephonic Interviews25
Methodological and Ideological study13
Secondary Data Analysis and Interviews13
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Karuppiah, K.; Sankaranarayanan, B.; Ali, S.M.; Santibanez Gonzalez, E.D.R. Impact of Circular Bioeconomy on Industry’s Sustainable Performance: A Critical Literature Review and Future Research Directions Analysis. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10759. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410759

AMA Style

Karuppiah K, Sankaranarayanan B, Ali SM, Santibanez Gonzalez EDR. Impact of Circular Bioeconomy on Industry’s Sustainable Performance: A Critical Literature Review and Future Research Directions Analysis. Sustainability. 2023; 15(14):10759. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410759

Chicago/Turabian Style

Karuppiah, Koppiahraj, Bathrinath Sankaranarayanan, Syed Mithun Ali, and Ernesto D. R. Santibanez Gonzalez. 2023. "Impact of Circular Bioeconomy on Industry’s Sustainable Performance: A Critical Literature Review and Future Research Directions Analysis" Sustainability 15, no. 14: 10759. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410759

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