Next Article in Journal
Response of Soil Microbial Population and Activity to Sunn Hemp Cover Crop, Combined Nano Zinc and Copper and Nitrogen Fertiliser Application After Canola Cultivation
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Entrepreneurship in the Western Balkan Countries: Key Constraints
Previous Article in Special Issue
Economic and Environmental Analysis of Aluminium Recycling from Retired Commercial Aircraft
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 21
10.3390/su17219409
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Circular Procurement Assessment Methods in the Built Environment: A Scientometric Analysis and Systematic Review

by
Charles Poleni Mukumba
1,*,
Sambo Lyson Zulu
2,* and
Neema Kavishe
2
1
Centre for Development Support, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa
2
School of Built Environment, Engineering and Computing, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds LS2 3AE, UK
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(21), 9409; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17219409
Submission received: 21 July 2025 / Revised: 23 September 2025 / Accepted: 16 October 2025 / Published: 23 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Circularity, Innovation, and Optimisation in Sustainable Supply Chains)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The circular economy has emerged as an alternative to the current linear model for solving global climate change challenges. Measuring circularity provides informed decision-making in circular procurement. However, a paucity of knowledge exists in circular procurement assessment methods in the built environment. This paper aims to map circular procurement assessment methods in the built environment for sustainable development. The study employed a systematic literature review and scientometric analysis to comprehensively understand circular procurement assessment methods in the built environment. Scientometric analysis was used to analyse the research patterns and trends quantitatively. A total of 146 research papers were retrieved from the Scopus database. VOSviewer was used to visualise relationships in the research. The results revealed the most prominent keywords: circular economy, life cycle, and sustainable development. The results reveal that few studies focus on circular procurement assessment methods in the built environment. The findings highlight the research gap in circular procurement assessment methods between the global north and the global south. This study significantly contributes to circular procurement assessment methods for decision-making in the built environment. Future research collaboration between scholars and institutions from the global north and the global south is encouraged for enhanced research in sustainable development.

1. Introduction

Circular economy and circular procurement research have increasingly gained traction with academics, industry, and policymakers. This is because of its importance in addressing global climate change challenges [1,2]. A circular economy maintains the value of products, materials, and resources by closing loops and minimising waste generation [3]. Studies [4,5] have explored the role and potential of public procurement to transition to a circular economy due to its ability to contribute to solving environmental, societal, and economic challenges sustainably. Globally, the construction industry consumes about 3 billion tonnes of raw materials annually due to its linear economic model characterised by a “take, make, dispose” approach [6]. Statistics show that the industry is responsible for 40% of global raw materials, which makes the construction sector crucial to the circular economy for environmental and economic sustainability [7]. In the UK, studies [8] suggest that the construction industry accounts for 40% of raw materials, while in the Netherlands, the construction sector alone accounts for about 50% of the country’s raw materials consumption, with many construction demolitions [9]. In Italy, the construction sector is responsible for 50% of material extraction and 37.5% of total waste production [10]. These figures highlight the need for sustainable practices in the construction industry to focus on circular strategies that promote reducing waste, reusing materials, and improving resource efficiency to minimise environmental impact.
Addressing waste in the built environment requires circular procurement strategies that harmonise metrics, definitions, and targets [5,11] to provide a unified understanding of progress towards sustainable development [12,13]. Despite the amount of materials the construction industry consumes, and the waste production from construction activities [14,15], limited studies have been conducted on circular procurement assessment methods for decision-making in the built environment [16,17]. Studies [18,19] have explored index method indicators used to assess circularity and support circular economy progress. Other studies have highlighted indicators that provide a standardised and quantifiable way to assess the performance of products, systems, or even entire economies regarding their circularity [20,21]. These studies suggest the need to explore circular procurement assessment methods for decision-making at the procurement stage to help achieve circularity, particularly in the built environment. This presents an opportunity to analyse the published literature on circular procurement assessment methods for decision-making. Therefore, the study’s twofold objectives are as follows:
  • To review and identify circular procurement assessment methods in the built environment.
  • To present the gaps and provide directions for further research on circular procurement assessment methods for decision-making at the procurement stage in the built environment.
To achieve the objectives of this research, the study adopted a systematic literature review [SLR] to map, using VOSviewer, circular procurement assessment methods research in the built environment by presenting the most impactful authors, influential countries, published papers, and dominating research journals. The study is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the circularity impact of assessment methods for procurement decision-making. A detailed methodology, including the data acquisition and analysis, is discussed in Section 3. The results and discussion are presented in Section 4, while Section 5 presents the study’s conclusion.

2. Circularity Impact of Assessment Methods for Procurement Decision-Making

Assessment tools for circularity in the built environment lead to a more sustainable and resource-efficient construction industry [16,17]. It enables the tracking and optimising of waste flows and their reduction, and promotes reuse and recycling throughout the built life cycle [22]. This ensures waste tracking and optimisation, which are key components of sustainable development, promoting responsible resource use and minimising environmental impact [23]. Furthermore, assessment tools can predict the environmental consequences of any planned project development by considering all facets of the environment, which is important for environmental protection and economic benefits [24]. Economically, waste reduction and reuse create new jobs and business opportunities in the recycling and waste management sectors [25]. And, environmentally, they help identify and evaluate the potential impacts of projects and policies on the environment [26]. Thus, they allow decision-makers to make informed choices and mitigate consequences [27]. Individual circularity indicators offer a concrete contribution to improving circular decision-making, though there are limits to applying such measurement tools [28]. For example, ref. [29] cites LCA’s lack of clear guidelines for accounting for multiple material uses with changing material qualities when used as a single indicator. As such, it may not be suitable in a specific context, such as the built environment [30].
Assessment methods for procurement decision-making are applied in the procurement evaluation process of submitted bids [31]. In construction procurement, assessment indicators provide bidders with clear and measurable criteria for evaluating circularity [32]. However, evaluation criteria in the solicitation documents must be objective and relevant to the specific services procured. It should stipulate the evaluation criteria to ensure transparency and a fair process, and minimise potential bias [33]. This enables bidders to demonstrate compliance and commitment to sustainable practices [2]. Clarity in circular procurement criteria improves the competitiveness of circular economy solutions. It also provides a level playing field for bidders to demonstrate their commitment to a circular economic approach, thus stimulating demand for sustainable goods and encouraging eco-innovations [34]. Ref. [32] posits that circularity evaluation criteria provide clear and measurable criteria for evaluating the circularity of their products and services, enabling bids to tailor their solutions to meet specific sustainability goals, primarily SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), which aims to ensure sustainable practices in the production and consumption of goods and services [35].
Implementing a circular strategy at the procurement stage can significantly reduce the extraction of raw materials [29,30]. In addition, it can help reduce supply chain pressures and provide infrastructure without negatively impacting the environment and biodiversity [8]. Hence, circular strategies can help the construction sector reduce its carbon footprint by 34%, 30% by avoiding demolition, and 20% by switching to the most material- and carbon-efficient technological options [36].

3. Research Methodology

To map circular procurement assessment methods at the procurement stage in the built environment, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Supplementary Material) were applied to published articles between 1999 and 2025 [37]. The study followed four key steps: Database selection, document identification, selection and inclusion, and data analysis.

3.1. Database Selection

The study utilised the Scopus database to comprehensively evaluate the research output of circular procurement assessment methods. Scopus was used to extract bibliometric information for the research. It is a popular database and a trustworthy source containing peer-reviewed, high-quality journals [38]. The advantage of Scopus over other popular databases, such as Web of Science and Google Scholar, is that a significant portion of the literature available in other databases is also covered by Scopus [39]. Scopus has a high data quality suitable for research evaluation, despite its limited coverage of other scientific knowledge sources, such as books, proceedings, and reports [40]. An important feature of the Scopus database is that it contains other scientometric analysis studies from other disciplines, including science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and humanities. Furthermore, the database allows the application of bibliometric analyses across various research domains [40].
Scientometric analysis was used to analyse scientific research and knowledge production in circular procurement assessment methods. The scientometric analysis assesses the contribution of authors and institutions, including their scientific collaborations, to the broader research domain [41]. This method statistically analyses published research and its impact by examining the quantitative aspects of the scholarly literature, including citations. By quantifying publications, citations, and collaborations, scientometric analysis enhances visibility, serves as a performance assessment, and drives research quality [42]. VOSviewer is an open-source software tool for creating and visualising bibliometric networks [43]. It was selected to analyse the scientific literature from Scopus to achieve the study’s objective. VOSviewer is easily accessible and easy to use. It generates visual representations to show the relationship between terms. Further, VOSviewer can visualise research trends, identify keyword co-occurrences, and perform cluster analysis to reveal thematic clusters within the research domain. Unlike qualitative review techniques, VOSviewer allows map visualisation to show research areas [43].

3.2. Document Identification, Selection, and Inclusion

A literature search focusing on circular procurement assessment methods was performed. The study employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [44] in searching for relevant documents in the Scopus database, as shown in Figure 1. PRISMA is well-known for improving clarity and consistency. It provides a clear method for reviewing literature and helps identify, screen, and select relevant articles thoroughly. PRISMA follows a transparent and structured approach [37].
The search was conducted on the Scopus database using a combination of keywords as follows (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Circular procurement” OR “Sustainable procurement” OR “Circularity” OR “Circular economy”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Assessment methods” OR “Evaluation techniques” OR “Measurement procedures”)) AND PUBYEAR > 1998 AND PUBYEAR < 2026 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “cp”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBSTAGE, “final”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”) OR LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “p”)) in the title, abstract or keywords. The Scopus database returned 417 results. The search criteria and exclusion process were as follows: The search was conducted on 2 May 2025. The year was restricted from 1999 to 2025, allowing the inclusion of when formal circular procurement gained traction and the development of the literature in the research domain under review. The search was restricted to the English language and document type (articles and conference papers). A total of 105 documents were excluded. To reduce the subjectivity of manual screening, 50% of the retained publications (312) were selected using a simple random selection method for review [45]. After screening the title and abstract, 10 documents were removed because they did not align with the specific study area or the research theme [46]. The selected articles are those that have a bias towards the built environment. The publishers and journals of 146 documents, with details including keywords, abstracts, authors’ affiliated institutions, and citation counts, were downloaded in CSV for analysis in VOSviewer.

3.3. Database Analysis

The SCV file containing data exported from Scopus was analysed using VOSviewer version 1.6.20 [43]. VOSviewer supports collaboration, co-authorship analysis, citation analysis, co-occurrence keyword analysis, document co-citations, and geo-spatial visualisation [47]. Network extraction was conducted by extracting author collaborations, co-citation networks, and keyword co-occurrences to draw maps for visual representation of circular procurement assessment methods. To visualise keyword analysis, keyword networks were generated using VOSviewer to obtain insight into the knowledge structure and analyse the relationships in scholarly articles. Keyword network analysis was used to analyse the topic distribution and identify emerging themes in circular procurement assessment methods from articles [48]. Co-authorship analysis of authors and organisations was conducted to detect and map knowledge in the circular procurement assessment methods research community [47]. Citation analysis created a network of related journal outlets, representing their association [49]. The cluster size was set to a threshold of 10% of the total sample size to ensure representation in the sample. To improve reproducibility of the analysis and achieve a more detailed classification of the network, the resolution parameter was set to the value of 2.00 [50].

4. Results and Discussion

The results aim to provide a synthesis of the review conducted. The distribution of publications, trends, authorship, productive journals, and most cited research articles from the review was established. Further, circularity assessment methods and areas for future research are identified. The analysis in the subsequent sections of this review addresses the following research questions:
  • What assessment methods are employed to measure circular procurement in the built environment?
  • What is the current state of research on circular procurement assessment methods for decision-making at the procurement stage in the built environment?

4.1. Distribution of Circular Procurement and Assessment Method Publications

The distribution of published articles in the analysis period [1999–2025] is illustrated in Figure 2. The analysis of results reveals the publication trends in circular procurement and assessment methods. Figure 2 shows that the first article was published in 2009, co-authored by Shao-Iun Zeng, Hong Hu, and Wei Wang, who are all affiliated with the University of Science and Engineering in China. No paper was published in the following years: 1999–2008. The amount of research on the topic of interest remained low over the following eight years [2009–2016]. From 2017 to 2024, there was a positive increase in published articles from 5 to 34. Though there are various reasons for increased publications, one could be the growing interest in circular procurement strategies and assessment methods to achieve a circular economy.
Analysis of results in Figure 2 shows that the year with the most published articles was 2024 [n = 34], with 24 more research publications than in 2025. This is suggestive of the growing recognition of the potential of circular procurement research to transition to the circular economy and enhance sustainability and resource efficiency. The search in Scopus was conducted in May 2025. A year is usually considered completely indexed in Scopus in June of the following year. Though considered incomplete, data for 2025 are included in the analysis to highlight the degree of progression in circular procurement assessment methods research. As of 23 May, articles were published in 2025, and more research in the field is expected to be released.

4.2. Co-Authorship Analysis

4.2.1. Authors

The top-most productive authors with three or more published research articles on circular procurement assessment methods are presented in Table 1. In addition, the table shows the number of citations for each author. Ulgiat Sergio, of Beijing Normal University, China, published the most studies, with seven research papers. This was followed by Santagata Remo from Parthenope University of Naples, Italy, with four published articles over the period under research.
The results show the trend of research among authors in circular procurement assessment methods to transition to a circular economy. In terms of citations, analysis of results in Table 1 shows that Azapagic Adisa of the University of Manchester, United Kingdom, is the most cited author with 401 citations. Surprisingly, it is noted that Azapagic does not appear in the table of authors with the most research publications. However, Ulgiati Sergio, with the most research output, is ranked 2nd with 258 citations. The top three cited authors received 40% of the total citations, which suggests the impact and influence of the authors’ published works in the research domain.
Figure 3 visualises the structure and interconnectedness of the most cited authors’ network. Analysis of the generated VOSviewer visualisation network shows that the cluster with the highest number of authors is red, with eleven authors. This is followed by the green cluster, which contains nine authors. Ulgati, S., Ghisellini, P., and Zucaro, A., all belonging to cluster colour Green, and Santagata, R. [Yellow] are the core of the most cited authors in circular procurement assessment methods. This suggests strong collaboration between authors based on their publications.

4.2.2. Co-Authorship Analysis of Organisations

The top ten institutions working on the circular procurement assessment methods research area, based on their number of citations, are shown in Table 2. Most of the top ten institutions are from Italy [n = 3]. They are followed by two research organisations from the United Kingdom. The findings reveal that Delft University of Technology from the Netherlands is the most productive institution according to citations [n = 896] and research quantity [17 documents]. The high number of total link strengths that Delft University of Technology has received [n = 59] demonstrates the strong relationship and frequency of the institution’s co-authorship with other institutions in circular procurement assessment methods to transition to a circular economy. Ghent University, Belgium, followed this with 437 citations. The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, is the 3rd most productive institution with 424 citations. The results demonstrate the involvement of organisations from the global north in creating local regenerative solutions aimed at lessening dependence on raw materials, reducing greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions [51], and promoting a low-carbon and resource-efficient society to transition toward regenerative [52].

4.2.3. Countries’ Research on Sustainable Public Procurement and Circular Economy

Table 3 shows the list of top active countries in the circular procurement assessment methods domain based on the number of research publications, total citations, average citations per year, and the total link strength. Italy has the highest number of citations [n = 1955] and total link strengths [n = 39]. The results suggest Italy’s research impact and collaborations in the research domain are under review. Globally, Italy is recognised for circular procurement research, particularly in implementing circular economy principles [53]. The results show that the top three cited countries account for 54% of the total link strength. This demonstrates the strong relationship and co-authorship of researchers in Italy, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands with other researchers in the circular procurement domain. This could be attributed to the global north’s great research capacity to invest in research and implement circular procurement strategies [54], the necessity to transition to a circular economy due to resource scarcity, and the need for sustainable development models [55] and proactive government policies to promote and implement circular economy principles in these countries [56]. Analysis of results shows that China is the only country in the global south that makes the list of the top ten most productive countries, with 834 citations. China’s lead in sustainable public procurement and circular economy in the global south is attributed to China’s agenda to address environmental degradation associated with the rapid economic development and eco-industrial initiative taken in China [57].
The geographical distribution of published research on circular procurement assessment methods among the countries by region is depicted in Figure 4. Research in circular procurement assessment methods is concentrated in the global north (color cluster gold), suggesting a weaker effort to adequately address the impact of circular procurement assessment methods in addressing circular economy initiatives in the global south (greyblack). No research publication was from Africa in the research domain for the period under review. The results suggest a lack of skills and technology required to drive sustainable circular economy research in Africa [58] and a lack of specific regulatory policies to transition to a circular economy [59]. Further, other factors that contribute to the global research imbalance between the global north and global south are driven by structural barriers [60], such as imbalances in research funding, exploitative practices around intellectual property and data ownership, and unequal recognition of contributions and career incentives that disadvantage researchers from the global south [61]. This demonstrates the need for more collaborative research among countries in the global north and global south, particularly African countries, in the field of circular procurement assessment methods in the African context.

4.3. Citation Analysis

4.3.1. Top Research Outlets in Circular Procurement Assessment Methods

The study sought to establish the most productive journals in circular procurement assessment methods. Citation analysis identifies top journals in the field under review. It also explores the linkage between the citing and cited published research papers [62]. Table 4 presents the top ten productive journal sources. The Journal of Cleaner Production is the most cited research outlet in circular procurement assessment methods. Cleaner Production received 1610 citations and published 20 research articles during the period under review. Sustainability [Switzerland] is ranked 2nd with 1578 citations. Analysis of results shows that Resources, Conservation and Recycling, ranked third in terms of citations, has the highest CiteScore and impact factor for 2024, as shown in Table 4. This suggests the journal’s broader readership and the potential for its articles to contribute significantly to circular procurement assessment methods research. Further analysis of results shows that, in total, 36 per cent of the analysed research publications are concentrated in one journal. Though the findings reveal that research is concentrated in one publication outlet, nine top research outlets represent 64% of the top journals. This demonstrates that other top research journals are beginning to publish research on circular procurement assessment methods.
The visualisation density in Figure 5 shows the distribution of the most productive research sources within the network of journal outlets. They can be identified according to clustering together in the three yellow colours. Journals in the same colour cluster signifies that they are frequently co-cited together by other publications. This indicates that they share a common knowledge base and are part of the same scholarly field or sub-discipline. The core areas of the network among the journal outlets are centred around the Journal of Cleaner Production, Sustainability [Switzerland], and Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

4.3.2. Top Articles on Sustainable Public Procurement and Circular Economy

The top 10 most cited articles are presented in Table 5. The most cited publications were identified and selected based on the times cited from highest to lowest. The analysis of results shows that the most cited research publication on circular procurement assessment methods, “Measuring circular economy strategies through index methods: A circular analysis, “ received 661 citations. In this work, the authors argue that the state-of-the-art research on circular economy shows that deep research on circular economy assessment and indicators is still lacking, particularly on the micro level. To fill the gap, the authors proposed a reference framework for the monitoring phase of the CE strategy through index methods, highlighting the need for better measurement indicators at the micro level. The second most cited paper is “Life cycle environmental impacts of chemical recycling via pyrolysis of mixed plastic waste in comparison with mechanical recycling and energy recovery”, with 361 citations. The authors examined the use of life cycle assessment [LCA] in managing mixed plastic waste through chemical recycling. They found that LCA significantly impacted climate change compared to other established waste management alternatives. The presented methods play a critical role in evaluating circular procurement by providing a framework for decision-making and impact assessment. This ensures that products and services support circular economy principles.
From the research publications in Table 5, three articles discussed circular economy strategies. One assessed the circular economy model in capturing environmental value propositions. The other two discussed the life cycle environmental impacts of recycling, including carbon emission reduction in prefabrication construction. Further, one research publication assessed the enablers of e-waste management in a circular economy. Among the ten articles, only one used a bibliometric analysis. Analysis of results shows that circular procurement assessment methods research uses the life cycle assessment approach. The results in Table 5 show that all the top-cited research publications under review are co-authored. This demonstrates the collaborative efforts occurring among researchers in the field of circular procurement and assessment methods.

4.3.3. Co-Occurring Analysis of Keywords

Keyword co-occurrence analysis was conducted to construct and map knowledge in circular procurement assessment methods. Keyword analysis provides a high degree of revelation into the main research direction in any field. Table 6 presents the top ten keywords from the retrieved documents used by authors in their publication titles, abstracts, and keywords. Circular economy emerges as the prominent authors’ keyword, occurring 199 times. Life cycle assessment occurred in 187 and is ranked second, demonstrating that the research is closely related to these two themes. Notably, “Sustainable development” [n = 148] and “Assessment methods” [n = 141] ranked third and fourth, respectively. Analysis of results in Table 6 shows the highest total link strength of the top ten keywords. Life cycle assessment has the highest total link strength of 1451. The circular economy follows this [n = 1037]. The occurrence of the top five keywords underscores the attention given to circular procurement assessment concepts in the circular economy context. Notably, keywords such as circular economy, life cycle assessment, sustainable development, and assessment methods have high occurrence and total link strength. It shows the attention these keywords have received in the circular procurement assessment methods research domain. Furthermore, the occurrence figures suggest the targeted assessment approaches in circular procurement to achieve a circular economy.
Figure 6 depicts the network of keyword co-occurrence analysis. The keyword network shows a range of areas researched in the domain and how they are connected. The labels and circles represent the items in the network. The large circles within the diagram denote the more frequent occurrences of the keywords [43]. The connections between nodes illustrate the co-occurrence relationship, highlighting how often specific keywords appear together within the literature [68]. The colours of the circles show the clustering results of related topics, and the circles with the same colours belong to the same cluster [43]. As shown in Figure 6, circular economy assessment methods (green) and life cycle assessment (red) were the keywords that were predominantly used from 2009 to 2025 in the circular procurement assessment methods research domain. Other major visualisation keywords include construction industry and decision-making (yellow), environmental performance and impact assessment (red), and global warming (blue).

4.4. Circularity Assessment Methods for Circular Economy

To manage and achieve circularity, it must be measured [69]. Ref. [70] posit that achieving circularity in the built environment requires a comprehensive and multidimensional approach. Though most approaches to measuring circularity focus on the environmental cycle, more attention to address economic and social approaches is necessary [35]. In decision-making, an index method can facilitate clear communication of circularity performance [17] to procurement policymakers, stakeholders, consumers, investors, and policymakers [71]. Thus, it is unsurprising that the circular economy has received legislative attention mainly in Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Italy, where CE indicators account for materials without taking the Life Cycle Thinking approach [LCT] [72]. Similarly, a specific set of indicators has been adopted in China to measure the CE strategy, though existing policies focus on broader areas like climate change [73], green economies, and waste management [59]. In contrast, policy approaches for accelerating circular procurement in sub-Saharan Africa are in their infancy. This is despite the potential benefits, which include an increase in the GDP, an employment rate of 2.7 per cent, and the advancement of sustainable development goals [74].
Several authors have advocated for a framework of assessment indicators for effectively evaluating the environmental impact of infrastructure projects [75,76]. Though [77] acknowledges efforts in building related research and development, implementing a combination of assessment methods for circularity in the construction sector is still in its infancy. It is mainly limited to minimising waste and maximising recycling [78]. In the context of the circular economy, assessment methods assist in measuring and assessing the circularity performance of projects [28], along their entire life cycle, by adequately managing the different resources involved [79]. These assessment methods support decision-making related to circular procurement to achieve sustainability [32]. Further, the indicators assist public decision-makers in prioritising decisions based on multiple factors, including the limited resources they must use in the best way possible [80]. Several indicators and tools used to assess and benchmark environmental impacts in social, economic, and environmental dimensions [81] can broadly be categorised as procurement process assessment [life cycle assessment] and procurement process evaluation [circular procurement hierarchy; multi-criteria approaches and fuzzy logic; material circular indicator and material flow analysis].

4.4.1. Life Cycle Assessments

Life cycle assessments [LCAs], as an assessment tool, assess environmental impacts and resources used throughout a product’s life cycle. It measures raw material acquisition, the use phase, and waste management [82]. As a methodology, it can be applied in circular construction procurement to analyse resource use across the life cycle of construction building materials [83]. Further, LCA aims to track environmental impacts in the value chain production, and the use and disposal of goods, and assesses them from a system perspective [84]. LCA effectively supports environmentally informed decisions in policy-making, product development, and procurement [70]. In addition, life cycle assessments can be applied within supply chain management to provide a clear advantage from an environmental point of view [85]. Though there is no one way of conducting an LCA, it has been used as a single tool or in combination with others. For instance, ref. [76] combined real estate appraisal, economic evaluation of a project’s environmental design, LCA, and LCC for developing a decision-making tool to support designers in the construction industry [28].

4.4.2. Circular Procurement Hierarchy

Circular procurement hierarchy is a framework that prioritises waste reduction and resource optimisation in purchasing decisions based on the waste hierarchy [reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover] [15]. It offers a more explicit priority through hierarchy by reducing material input into the economy and the material output or waste, which is key to achieving a sustainable circular economy [86]. Circular procurement hierarchy also helps assess suppliers’ capabilities to contribute to a circular economy [32]. However, it is criticised for lacking incentives for following the order of treatment of resources in the waste hierarchy [87], which can lead to less preferred options like energy recovery or disposal being prioritised over more sustainable choices like prevention, reuse, or recycling [86].

4.4.3. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making and Fuzzy Logic

The multi-criteria decision-making [MCDM] approach is applied to evaluate and select the most appropriate options from a set of alternatives within a framework once circularity principles are established [88]. Meanwhile, fuzzy logic is a functional mathematical approach that details imprecise and vague information, such as vulnerability of a system and subjective human language, into precise numerical values, enabling the calculation of risk analysis and a better description of consequences [89]. For instance, imprecision, incomplete data, and reliance on expert opinions with biases to improve decision-making when precise numerical data is unavailable increase risk by hindering accurate risk assessment and leading to flawed decision-making [90].
MCDM and fuzzy methods have often been employed with other approaches to measure circular performances from environmental and economic perspectives. Together, they offer a robust, valuable framework for decision-making problems with uncertain or subjective information [79]. In circular procurement, the MCDM and fuzzy logic combination provides a structured and systematic approach for evaluating multiple conflicting criteria [91], which is essential for making informed choices aligned with sustainability and the circular economy. The framework helps to handle the complexities of circular economy assessments and decision-making, where quantifying the circularity of products or processes can be challenging [16].

4.4.4. Material Circularity Indicator and Material Flow Analysis

According to [32], the material circular indicator [MCI] is a prime example of a tool to gauge circularity [92]. The MCI, developed by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and Franta Design, indicates how much material a product circulates. It can measure linear and restorative flows, though it does not fully explain the product’s sustainability [28]. While material flow analysis [MFA] is described as a mass balance approach that tracks and quantifies the movement of materials within a system [93], it provides complete and consistent information about movements, depletion, and remaining energy reserves and material resources within the relevant system [94]. In addition, MFA can facilitate early recognition of problems such as environmental load and resource depletion [72]. Similarly, by analysing resource flows, the material circular indicator helps identify inefficiencies and areas for improvement, leading to more sustainable practices [95].

5. Conclusions

The study examined circular procurement assessment methods to achieve a circular economy in the built environment. The study addresses this by presenting a scientometric analysis of circular procurement assessment methods in research. The findings show that the first article, co-authored by Shao-Iun Zeng, Hong Hu, and Wei Wang, who are all affiliated with Sichuan University of Science and Engineering, China, was published in 2009. The analysis revealed that Ulgiat Sergio of Beijing Normal University, China, is the most productive author. Sergio has seven publications. However, Azapagic Adisa of the University of Manchester received the highest citations [n = 401]. Regarding top institutions publishing on circular procurement assessment methods, Delft University of Technology from the Netherlands is the most productive institution with the most citations [n = 896]. Italy leads with three of the top ten institutions producing works on circular procurement assessment methods. The Journal of Cleaner Production is the most cited article on circular procurement assessment methods, as revealed by the research findings.
Circular procurement assessment methods research is advancing in the global north and, partly, in the global south, with China as the lead. However, Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, is lagging. The study established that no author, institution, or country in the global south, except for China, contributed to the publications under review. Further, the results show no collaboration between the researchers in the global north and the global south on circular procurement assessment methods research, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, despite the benefits of circular economy assessment methods research for policy and practice. After analysing the assessment methods employed to measure circularity and achieve a circular economy, the study established the various assessment methods employed to measure circularity and achieve a circular economy. The study established that most published research focuses on agriculture, manufacturing, food, and textile industries. This demonstrates the need for more integrated assessment methods for circular procurement in the built environment to capture the full scope of circularity and guide decision-making for sustainable construction.
Finally, the results reveal that several assessment tools are used to measure circularity. The findings show that life cycle assessment is the most used single tool, and it is placed in combination with other methods to evaluate the environmental impact of a product, process, or system. The results show that assessment methods help decision-makers prioritise resource use in the built environment to minimise environmental impact through the project life cycle. The study established that different assessment methods are employed to assess circularity and that a review of the literature shows that previous authors have proposed frameworks for specific areas of assessment and evaluations. However, no agreed assessment methods framework is designed to help decision-making in circular procurement in the built environment. The study findings are useful to guide further research on a framework for assessment methods to be employed in decision-making for circular procurement in the built environment, particularly for the growing economies of the global south and African countries.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17219409/s1, Table S1: PRISMA 2020 Checklist. Reference [96] is cited in the Supplementary Material.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.L.Z. and C.P.M.; methodology, S.L.Z. and C.P.M.; validation, S.L.Z., C.P.M. and N.K.; formal analysis, S.L.Z., C.P.M. and N.K.; investigation, S.L.Z., C.P.M. and N.K.; data curation, C.P.M.; writing—original draft preparation, C.P.M.; writing—review and editing, C.P.M., S.L.Z. and N.K.; visualisation, C.P.M. and N.K.; supervision, S.L.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not Applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. De Angelis, R.; Howard, M.; Miemczyk, J. Supply Chain Management and the Circular Economy: Towards the Circular Supply Chain. Prod. Plan. Control 2018, 29, 425–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sönnichsen, S.D.; Clement, J. Review of Green and Sustainable Public Procurement: Towards Circular Public Procurement. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Geissdoerfer, M.; Morioka, S.N.; De Carvalho, M.M.; Evans, S. Business Models and Supply Chains for the Circular Economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 190, 712–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy—A New Sustainability Paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Alhola, K.; Ryding, S.O.; Salmenperä, H.; Busch, N.J. Exploiting the Potential of Public Procurement: Opportunities for Circular Economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019, 23, 96–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. World Economic Forum. Can the Circular Economy Transform the World’s Number One Consumer of Raw Materials? Available online: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2016/05/can-the-circular-economy-transform-the-world-s-number-one-consumer-of-raw-materials/ (accessed on 19 July 2025).
  7. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Transforming the Built Environment. Available online: https://www.wbcsd.org/actions/transforming-the-built-environment/ (accessed on 19 July 2025).
  8. Green Alliance UK. Circular Construction. Available online: https://www.green-alliance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Circular-construction.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2025).
  9. Teigiserova, D.A.; Reit, C.A.J.; Schraven, D.F.J. Does PSS Help to Increase Circularity? A Framework for the Circular Design Process and Case Study of Five Pilots in the Dutch Infrastructure Sector. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 199, 107230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Giorgi, S.; Lavagna, M. Italian Regulations and Local Initiatives for Circular Economy in the Construction Sector. In Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 615–624. ISBN 978-3-031-57799-4. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hao, J.L.; Cheng, B.; Lu, W.; Xu, J.; Wang, J.; Bu, W.; Guo, Z. Carbon Emission Reduction in Prefabrication Construction during Materialization Stage: A BIM-Based Life-Cycle Assessment Approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 723, 137870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kristensen, H.S.; Mosgaard, M.A.; Remmen, A. Circular Public Procurement Practices in Danish Municipalities. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 281, 124962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gravagnuolo, A.; Angrisano, M.; Fusco Girard, L. Circular Economy Strategies in Eight Historic Port Cities: Criteria and Indicators Towards a Circular City Assessment Framework. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fei, W.; Opoku, A.; Agyekum, K.; Oppon, J.A.; Ahmed, V.; Chen, C.; Lok, K.L. The Critical Role of the Construction Industry in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Delivering Projects for the Common Good. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, C.; Hu, M.; Di Maio, F.; Sprecher, B.; Yang, X.; Tukker, A. An Overview of the Waste Hierarchy Framework for Analyzing the Circularity in Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 803, 149892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Walzberg, J.; Lonca, G.; Hanes, R.J.; Eberle, A.L.; Carpenter, A.; Heath, G.A. Do We Need a New Sustainability Assessment Method for the Circular Economy? A Critical Literature Review. Front. Sustain. 2021, 1, 620047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Elia, V.; Gnoni, M.G.; Tornese, F. Measuring Circular Economy Strategies through Index Methods: A Critical Analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2741–2751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kalmykova, Y.; Sadagopan, M.; Rosado, L. Circular Economy—From Review of Theories and Practices to Development of Implementation Tools. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 135, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lovrenčić Butković, L.; Mihić, M.; Sigmund, Z. Assessment Methods for Evaluating Circular Economy Projects in Construction: A Review of Available Tools. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2023, 23, 877–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Niero, M.; Kalbar, P.P. Coupling Material Circularity Indicators and Life Cycle Based Indicators: A Proposal to Advance the Assessment of Circular Economy Strategies at the Product Level. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 140, 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wiedenhofer, D.; Fishman, T.; Lauk, C.; Haas, W.; Krausmann, F. Integrating Material Stock Dynamics Into Economy-Wide Material Flow Accounting: Concepts, Modelling, and Global Application for 1900–2050. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 156, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dsilva, J.; Zarmukhambetova, S.; Locke, J. Assessment of Building Materials in the Construction Sector: A Case Study Using Life Cycle Assessment Approach to Achieve the Circular Economy. Heliyon 2023, 9, e20404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hajam, Y.A.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, A. Environmental Waste Management Strategies and Vermi Transformation for Sustainable Development. Environ. Chall. 2023, 13, 100747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sacchi, R.; Terlouw, T.; Siala, K.; Dirnaichner, A.; Bauer, C.; Cox, B.; Mutel, C.; Daioglou, V.; Luderer, G. PRospective EnvironMental Impact asSEment (Premise): A Streamlined Approach to Producing Databases for Prospective Life Cycle Assessment Using Integrated Assessment Models. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 160, 112311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sharma, H.B.; Vanapalli, K.R.; Samal, B.; Cheela, V.R.S.; Dubey, B.K.; Bhattacharya, J. Circular Economy Approach in Solid Waste Management System to Achieve UN-SDGs: Solutions for Post-COVID Recovery. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 800, 149605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Aghbashlo, M.; Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Shahbeik, H.; Tabatabaei, M. The Role of Sustainability Assessment Tools in Realizing Bioenergy and Bioproduct Systems. Biofuel Res. J. 2022, 9, 1697–1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ellen Macarthur Foundation. Transitioning to a Circular Economy Business|Report. Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/towards-the-circular-economy-vol-1-an-economic-and-business-rationale-for-an (accessed on 20 May 2025).
  28. Rigamonti, L.; Mancini, E. Life Cycle Assessment and Circularity Indicators. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 1937–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Haupt, M.; Zschokke, M. How Can LCA Support the Circular Economy?—63rd Discussion Forum on Life Cycle Assessment, Zurich, Switzerland, November 30, 2016. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 832–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Saidani, M.; Yannou, B.; Leroy, Y.; Cluzel, F.; Kendall, A. A Taxonomy of Circular Economy Indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 542–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Laosirihongthong, T.; Samaranayake, P.; Nagalingam, S. A Holistic Approach to Supplier Evaluation and Order Allocation towards Sustainable Procurement. Benchmarking Int. J. 2019, 26, 2543–2573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Corsini, F.; De Bernardi, C.; Gusmerotti, N.M.; Frey, M. Introducing the Circular Assessment of Suppliers (CAoS) Tool: A Kraljic Matrix-Based Tool to Facilitate Circular Procurement in Private Organizations. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 452, 142085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rainville, A.D. Stimulating a More Circular Economy through Public Procurement: Roles and Dynamics of Intermediation. Res. Policy 2021, 50, 104193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Meehan, J.; Bryde, D. Sustainable Procurement Practice. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2011, 20, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Corona, B.; Shen, L.; Reike, D.; Rosales Carreón, J.; Worrell, E. Towards Sustainable Development through the Circular Economy—A Review and Critical Assessment on Current Circularity Metrics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Drewniok, M.P.; Azevedo, J.M.C.; Dunant, C.F.; Allwood, J.M.; Cullen, J.M.; Ibell, T.; Hawkins, W. Mapping Material Use and Embodied Carbon in UK Construction. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 197, 107056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated Guidance and Exemplars for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Pranckutė, R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications 2021, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Martín-Martín, A.; Thelwall, M.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A Multidisciplinary Comparison of Coverage via Citations. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 871–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Serenko, A.; Bontis, N.; Booker, L.; Sadeddin, K.; Hardie, T. A Scientometric Analysis of Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital Academic Literature (1994–2008). J. Knowl. Manag. 2010, 14, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Okonta, D.E. The Scientometric Analysis and Visualization of Sustainable Procurement. Heliyon 2023, 9, e20985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer Manual. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.20.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2025).
  44. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; for the PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. BMJ 2009, 339, b2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Xie, Y.; Sun, X. Smart Implementation and Expectations for Sustainable Buildings: A Scientometric Analysis. Buildings 2025, 15, 2436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fleming, P.S.; Koletsi, D.; Pandis, N. Blinded by PRISMA: Are Systematic Reviewers Focusing on PRISMA and Ignoring Other Guidelines? PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e96407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, C. Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Data Inf. Sci. 2017, 2, 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cheng, Q.; Wang, J.; Lu, W.; Huang, Y.; Bu, Y. Keyword-Citation-Keyword Network: A New Perspective of Discipline Knowledge Structure Analysis. Scientometrics 2020, 124, 1923–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kleminski, R.; Kazienko, P.; Kajdanowicz, T. Analysis of Direct Citation, Co-Citation and Bibliographic Coupling in Scientific Topic Identification. J. Inf. Sci. 2022, 48, 349–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Marzi, G.; Balzano, M.; Caputo, A.; Pellegrini, M.M. Guidelines for Bibliometric-Systematic Literature Reviews: 10 Steps to Combine Analysis, Synthesis and Theory Development. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2025, 27, 81–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Haswell, F.; Edelenbosch, O.Y.; Piscicelli, L.; Van Vuuren, D.P. The Geography of Circularity Missions: A Cross-Country Comparison of Circular Economy Policy Approaches in the Global North and Global South. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2024, 52, 100883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Henrysson, M.; Nuur, C. The Role of Institutions in Creating Circular Economy Pathways for Regional Development. J. Environ. Dev. 2021, 30, 149–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Economic Instruments for the Circular Economy in Italy. 2024. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/economic-instruments-for-the-circular-economy-in-italy_33e11c28-en.html (accessed on 20 July 2025).
  54. Barrie, J.; Anantharaman, M.; Oyinlola, M.; Schröder, P. The Circularity Divide: What Is It? And How Do We Avoid It? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 180, 106208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kirchherr, J.; Yang, N.-H.N.; Schulze-Spüntrup, F.; Heerink, M.J.; Hartley, K. Conceptualizing the Circular Economy (Revisited): An Analysis of 221 Definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 194, 107001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hartley, K.; Schülzchen, S.; Bakker, C.A.; Kirchherr, J. A Policy Framework for the Circular Economy: Lessons from the EU. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 412, 137176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Govindan, K.; Hasanagic, M. A Systematic Review on Drivers, Barriers, and Practices towards Circular Economy: A Supply Chain Perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 278–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ellen Macarthur Foundation. Circular Economy in Africa: Examples and Opportunities: Automotives. Available online: https://content.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/m/2f5f56e094204f95/original/Circular-economy-in-Africa-Automotives.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2025).
  59. Debrah, J.K.; Teye, G.K.; Dinis, M.A.P. Barriers and Challenges to Waste Management Hindering the Circular Economy in Sub-Saharan Africa. Urban Sci. 2022, 6, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Collyer, F.M. Global Patterns in the Publishing of Academic Knowledge: Global North, Global South. Curr. Sociol. 2018, 66, 56–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Demeter, M.A. Academic Knowledge Production and the Global South: Questioning Inequality and Under-Representation; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; ISBN 978-3-030-52701-3. [Google Scholar]
  62. Gundolf, K.; Filser, M. Management Research and Religion: A Citation Analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 112, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jeswani, H.; Krüger, C.; Russ, M.; Horlacher, M.; Antony, F.; Hann, S.; Azapagic, A. Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Chemical Recycling via Pyrolysis of Mixed Plastic Waste in Comparison with Mechanical Recycling and Energy Recovery. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 769, 144483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Manninen, K.; Koskela, S.; Antikainen, R.; Bocken, N.; Dahlbo, H.; Aminoff, A. Do Circular Economy Business Models Capture Intended Environmental Value Propositions? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 413–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bolzonella, D.; Fatone, F.; Gottardo, M.; Frison, N. Nutrients Recovery from Anaerobic Digestate of Agro-Waste: Techno-Economic Assessment of Full Scale Applications. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 216, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sharma, M.; Joshi, S.; Kumar, A. Assessing Enablers of E-Waste Management in Circular Economy Using DEMATEL Method: An Indian Perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 13325–13338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Goyal, S.; Chauhan, S.; Mishra, P. Circular Economy Research: A Bibliometric Analysis (2000–2019) and Future Research Insights. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 287, 125011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yang, J. Advancing the Field: A VOSviewer-Based Analysis of Research Trends in the English Translation of Sandalwood Death. Cogent Arts Humanit. 2025, 12, 2447636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pomponi, F.; Moncaster, A. Circular Economy for the Built Environment: A Research Framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 710–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ossio, F.; Salinas, C.; Hernández, H. Circular Economy in the Built Environment: A Systematic Literature Review and Definition of the Circular Construction Concept. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 414, 137738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Giorgi, S.; Lavagna, M.; Wang, K.; Osmani, M.; Liu, G.; Campioli, A. Drivers and Barriers towards Circular Economy in the Building Sector: Stakeholder Interviews and Analysis of Five European Countries Policies and Practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 336, 130395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Moraga, G.; Huysveld, S.; Mathieux, F.; Blengini, G.A.; Alaerts, L.; Van Acker, K.; De Meester, S.; Dewulf, J. Circular Economy Indicators: What Do They Measure? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 452–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Connolly-Boutin, L.; Smit, B. Climate Change, Food Security, and Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa. Reg. Environ. Change 2016, 16, 385–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. SAPIENS Network. Public Procurement in a Circular Economy: An Overview of the EU and South African Models. Available online: https://documentserver.uhasselt.be/bitstream/1942/45112/1/WORKING-PAPER-esr3_AIURA-March_24.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2025).
  75. Ferreiro-Cabello, J.; Fraile-Garcia, E.; Martinez De Pison Ascacibar, E.; Martinez De Pison Ascacibar, F.J. Minimizing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Costs for Structures with Flat Slabs. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 922–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fregonara, E.; Giordano, R.; Ferrando, D.G.; Pattono, S. Economic-Environmental Indicators to Support Investment Decisions: A Focus on the Buildings’ End-of-Life Stage. Buildings 2017, 7, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Buyle, M.; Galle, W.; Debacker, W.; Audenaert, A. Sustainability Assessment of Circular Building Alternatives: Consequential LCA and LCC for Internal Wall Assemblies as a Case Study in a Belgian Context. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 218, 141–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Esa, M.R.; Halog, A.; Rigamonti, L. Developing Strategies for Managing Construction and Demolition Wastes in Malaysia Based on the Concept of Circular Economy. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2017, 19, 1144–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sassanelli, C.; Rosa, P.; Rocca, R.; Terzi, S. Circular Economy Performance Assessment Methods: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 440–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Asadikia, A.; Rajabifard, A.; Kalantari, M. Navigating Sustainability: Key Factors in Prioritising Sustainable Development Goals. Sustain. Sci. 2024, 19, 2041–2063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Strezov, V.; Evans, A.; Evans, T.J. Assessment of the Economic, Social and Environmental Dimensions of the Indicators for Sustainable Development. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 25, 242–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hauschild, M.Z. Life Cycle Assessment. In CIRP Encyclopedia of Production Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 1034–1043. ISBN 978-3-662-53119-8. [Google Scholar]
  83. Campioli, A.; Dalla Valle, A.; Ganassali, S.; Giorgi, S. Designing the Life Cycle of Materials: New Trends in Environmental Perspective. Techne J. Technol. Archit. Environ. 2018, 16, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hellweg, S.; Milà I Canals, L. Emerging Approaches, Challenges and Opportunities in Life Cycle Assessment. Science 2014, 344, 1109–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Genovese, A.; Acquaye, A.A.; Figueroa, A.; Koh, S.C.L. Sustainable Supply Chain Management and the Transition towards a Circular Economy: Evidence and Some Applications. Omega 2017, 66, 344–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Nilsen, H.R. The Hierarchy of Resource Use for a Sustainable Circular Economy. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2019, 47, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Van Ewijk, S.; Stegemann, J.A. Limitations of the Waste Hierarchy for Achieving Absolute Reductions in Material Throughput. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 132, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Alamerew, Y.A.; Kambanou, M.L.; Sakao, T.; Brissaud, D. A Multi-Criteria Evaluation Method of Product-Level Circularity Strategies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Padilla-Rivera, A.; Do Carmo, B.B.T.; Arcese, G.; Merveille, N. Social Circular Economy Indicators: Selection through Fuzzy Delphi Method. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Al-Mhdawi, M.K.S.; Qazi, A.; Karakhan, A.A.; Pour Rahimian, F.; Abualqumboz, M.; Al Mhdawi, A.K.; Al-Raweshidy, H. Implementation of a Combined Fuzzy Controller Model to Enhance Risk Assessment in Oil and Gas Construction Projects. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 68319–68333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Singh, R.K.; Benyoucef, L. A Fuzzy TOPSIS Based Approach for E-Sourcing. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2011, 24, 437–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ellen Macarthur Foundation. Delivering the Circular Economy: A Toolkit for Policymakers. Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/a-toolkit-for-policymakers (accessed on 20 July 2025).
  93. Islam, M.T.; Huda, N. Material Flow Analysis (MFA) as a Strategic Tool in E-Waste Management: Applications, Trends and Future Directions. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 244, 344–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Baars, J.; Rajaeifar, M.A.; Heidrich, O. Quo Vadis MFA? Integrated Material Flow Analysis to Support Material Efficiency. J. Ind. Ecol. 2022, 26, 1487–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bringezu, S.; Moriguchi, Y. Material Flow Analysis. In Green Accounting; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2018; ISBN 978-1-351-77083-5. [Google Scholar]
  96. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 17 09409 g001
Figure 1. Document identification process for circular procurement assessment methods.
Figure 1. Document identification process for circular procurement assessment methods.
Sustainability 17 09409 g001
Sustainability 17 09409 g002
Figure 2. Circular economy assessment method publications per period indexed in Scopus.
Figure 2. Circular economy assessment method publications per period indexed in Scopus.
Sustainability 17 09409 g002
Sustainability 17 09409 g003
Figure 3. Network visualisation of most cited authors in circular procurement methods.
Figure 3. Network visualisation of most cited authors in circular procurement methods.
Sustainability 17 09409 g003
Sustainability 17 09409 g004
Figure 4. Country-specific circular economy assessment methods production (authors generated).
Figure 4. Country-specific circular economy assessment methods production (authors generated).
Sustainability 17 09409 g004
Sustainability 17 09409 g005
Figure 5. Visualisation density of citations by prominent sources in circular economy assessment methods.
Figure 5. Visualisation density of citations by prominent sources in circular economy assessment methods.
Sustainability 17 09409 g005
Sustainability 17 09409 g006
Figure 6. Network of co-occurrence keywords.
Figure 6. Network of co-occurrence keywords.
Sustainability 17 09409 g006
Table 1. Top 10 most productive authors by documents and citations.
Table 1. Top 10 most productive authors by documents and citations.
AuthorDocumentRankAuthorCitationsRank
Ulgiati, S.71Azapagic, A.4011
Santagata, R.42Ulgiati, S.2582
Beylot, A.33Niero, M.2083
Ghisellini, P.34Santagata, R.1864
Havukainen, J.35Van Stijn, A.1795
Hellweg, S.36D’Adamo, I.1496
Horttanainen, M.37Rosa, P.1497
Meijer, A.38Zucaro, A.1468
Van Stijn, A.39Fivet, C.1439
Wouterszoon Jansen, B.310Meijer, A.13310
Table 2. Top 10 organisations in circular procurement assessment methods based on documents and citations.
Table 2. Top 10 organisations in circular procurement assessment methods based on documents and citations.
OrganisationCountryDocumentsCitationsTotal Links
Delft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands1789659
Ghent UniversityBelgium843731
University of BirminghamUnited Kingdom842456
Parthenope University of NapoliItaly837919
University of Napoli Federico IIItaly737438
CNRS Centre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueFrance1129335
Beijing Normal UniversityChina622226
Parthenope University of NaplesItaly918930
Brunel University LondonUnited Kingdom716613
Universitat Autonoma de BarcelonaSpain55735
Table 3. Top 10 Countries’ research origins on circular procurement and circular economy.
Table 3. Top 10 Countries’ research origins on circular procurement and circular economy.
CountryGlobal ClassificationDocumentsCitationsAverage CitationsTotal Link Strength
ItalyGlobal north4419554439
United KingdomGlobal north3912723323
The NetherlandsGlobal north3010603512
GermanyGlobal north329252914
SpainGlobal north308702920
ChinaGlobal south288343010
United StatesGlobal north18579324
AustriaGlobal north14405296
FranceGlobal north17357218
SwitzerlandGlobal north14342242
Table 4. The top-most productive journals.
Table 4. The top-most productive journals.
Journal NameDocuments[%]CitationsCite Score 2024Impact Factor 2024Rank
Journal of Cleaner Production2013161020.710.01
Sustainability543615787.73.32
Resources, Conservation and Recycling181280724.710.93
Science of the Total Environment12878816.48.04
Journal of Industrial Ecology117398125.45
Waste Management9614815.17.16
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment7511410.45.47
Procedia CIRP751023.72.288
Journal of Environment Management7531214.48.49
Sustainable Production and Consumption6414322.59.610
Table 5. Top 10 most cited papers on circular procurement and circular economy in 2004–2025.
Table 5. Top 10 most cited papers on circular procurement and circular economy in 2004–2025.
ArticleCitationsReferencesJournalKeywords
“Measuring circular economy strategies through index methods: A critical analysis”661[17]Cleaner
Production		Assessment; Circular economy;
Environmental impact; Index methods;
Micro-level
“Life cycle environmental impacts of chemical recycling via pyrolysis of mixed plastic waste in comparison with mechanical recycling and
energy recovery”		361[63]Science of the Total
Environment		Circular economy; Life cycle assessment; Low-density polyethylene; Plastic waste; Pyrolysis; Recycling
“Do circular economy business models capture intended environmental value propositions?”356[64]Cleaner
Production		Business model;
Circular economy;
Environmental impact; Environmental value proposition; Value
creation
“Carbon emission reduction in prefabrication construction during materialisation stage: A BIM-based life cycle assessment approach”215[11]Science of the Total
Environment		BIM; Carbon emissions; Life cycle assessment; Materialization stage; Prefabrication
“Coupling material circularity indicators and life
cycle-based indicators: A proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at the product level”		193[20]Resource,
Conservation and Recycling		Circular economy;
Circular indicators; Life
cycle assessment; Multi-criteria decision analysis; Packaging; TOPSIS
“Circular economy strategies in eight historic port cities: Criteria and indicators towards a circular city
assessment framework”		158[13]SustainabilityBuilt environment;
Circular city; Circular economy; Evaluation;
Historical cities; Indicators; Port cities; Urban circular economy; Urban metabolisms
“Nutrients recovery from anaerobic digestate of agro-waste: Techno-economic assessment of full-scale
applications”		154[65]Environmental ManagementAnaerobic digestion; Circular economy;
Drying; Manure;
Membranes; Nutrients; Stripping
“Assessing enablers of e-waste management in circular economy using DEMATEL method: An Indian
perspective”		150[66]Environmental Science and
Pollution Research		Circular economy [CE]; Developing countries;
E-waste management [e-WM]; End-of-life [EoL]; MCDM
“Integrating material stock dynamics into economy-wide material flowing accounting: Concepts, modelling and global application for 1900–2050”148[21]Ecological
Economics		Circular economy;
Dynamic material flow analysis; Economy-wide material flow
accounting;
Monte-Carlo simulations;
Socio-economic metabolism;
Uncertainty
“Circular economy research: A bibliometric analysis (2000–2019) and future research insights”134[67]Cleaner
Production		Bibliometric metric;
Circular economy;
Conceptual framework;
Literature review;
Sustainability
Table 6. Most co-occurrence keywords.
Table 6. Most co-occurrence keywords.
RankKeywordOccurrencesTotal Link Strength
1Circular economy1991037
2Life cycle assessment1871451
3Sustainable development148964
4Assessment method141745
5Environmental impact assessment99793
6Recycling63451
7Waste management63479
8Economic aspect57434
9Climate change31247
10Construction industry21128
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

Mukumba, C.P.; Zulu, S.L.; Kavishe, N. Circular Procurement Assessment Methods in the Built Environment: A Scientometric Analysis and Systematic Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 9409. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17219409

AMA Style

Mukumba CP, Zulu SL, Kavishe N. Circular Procurement Assessment Methods in the Built Environment: A Scientometric Analysis and Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2025; 17(21):9409. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17219409

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mukumba, Charles Poleni, Sambo Lyson Zulu, and Neema Kavishe. 2025. "Circular Procurement Assessment Methods in the Built Environment: A Scientometric Analysis and Systematic Review" Sustainability 17, no. 21: 9409. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17219409

APA Style

Mukumba, C. P., Zulu, S. L., & Kavishe, N. (2025). Circular Procurement Assessment Methods in the Built Environment: A Scientometric Analysis and Systematic Review. Sustainability, 17(21), 9409. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17219409

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