Circular Economy in Property Management: A Prisma Systematic Review

Circular Economy in Property Management: A Prisma Systematic Review

Raja Nurul Sakinah Raja Syamsuddin¹, Fitriyah Razali^{2,3 *}, Noramirah Nabilah Sulaiman¹, Hariati Abdullah Hashim^2,3

¹Faculty of Built Environment and Surveying, Real Estate Department, University Teknologi Malaysia.

²Mass Appraisal, Housing and Planning Research Group, Real Estate Department, Faculty of Built Environment and Surveying, University Teknologi Malaysia.

³entre for Real Estate Studies, Institute for Smart Infrastructure and Innovative Construction (ISIIC), University Teknologi Malaysia.

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9010364

Received: 11 January 2025; Revised: 21 January 2025; Accepted: 24 January 2025; Published: 22 February 2025

ABSTRACT

The concept of the Circular Economy has generated significant impact as a sustainable alternative to the traditional linear economic model, emphasizing resource efficiency, waste reduction, and environmental sustainability. This study aims to explore the integration of circular economy practices within the field of property management through a comprehensive literature review conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. This systematic review analysing the existing literature on the circular economy and property management, identifying key themes and practices associated with the application of Circular Economy principles in property management. The review encompasses peer-reviewed articles, conference papers, and article journals published over the last decade. The findings reveal a growing interest in adopting of circular economy practices within property management, driven by the need for more sustainable building practices, improved resource efficiency, and enhanced asset value. Key themes identified include the implementation of closed-loop systems, sustainable building materials, waste minimization strategies, and the role of technology in facilitating Circular Economy practices. Trends of circular economy studies are evolving all around the world addressing significant issues such as waste reduction, resource efficiency, and long-term value creation within the property management sector. The increasing keywords related to Circular Economy identified are “Sustainability”, “Sustainable development”, “Facility management”, “Facilities management”, and “Property management”. The study concludes by outlining the potential benefits of integrating circular economy practices in property management, including reduced environmental impact, cost savings, and increased property value. Additionally, it identifies gaps in the existing literature and suggests areas for future research.

Keywords: Circular Economy, Built Environment, Literature Review, PRISMA Systematic Review, Sustainability, Property Management, Facilities Management, Real Estate Management

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the Circular Economy (CE) has been recognized as an important approach to enable environmental sustainability through reducing, reuse and recycling across many economic sectors. In contrast to the linear economy approach of ‘take, make, dispose,’ of the CE model aims to minimize/eliminate waste and extend and re-introduce the life cycle of products and materials (close the loop). The real estate industry being, as it already is, one of the largest consumers of resources and producers of waste on the global stage means the theory has huge potential in property management alone. The benefits of CE on the environment and economy can’t be embraced if linear economy still dominates most of property management practices.

CE also relates to sustainability in that it helps achieve sustainability goals through the management of natural resources, implementing cycles and decreasing waste. CE can contribute to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by eradicating poverty and social exclusion through the integration of CE indicators in monitoring processes (Maricuţ & Grădinaru, 2023). Therefore, sustainability has emerged as a significant concern for the real estate sector, in response to rising regulatory pressure, stakeholder demands and the need to decrease spending energy. Property management, as a system that incorporates waste reduction practices, energy efficiency measures, and sustainable resource management strategies, has gained increasing recognition and acceptance. Despite increasing awareness of the issue, the implementation of CE principles in property management remains understood on a limited level in literature. The transition to CE is particularly important in countries with economies in transition, where bridging identified gaps and understanding the local context are crucial for successful implementation (Mihajlov et al., 2021)

To evaluate the efficiency of this study, the researcher employs The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) literature review framework. It has recently become a crucial heuristic for improving quality, transparency and consistency of systematic reviews in many research fields. PRISMA offers a well-structured and comprehensive approach whereby it aids researchers in reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis in a meticulous manner. This not only guarantees the scientific quality of the reviews but also increases their reproducibility and trustworthiness for this research. In addition, by employing the PRISMA framework applied in systematic review, researchers can systematically identify, select, and synthesize relevant studies, identifying the findings before drawing conclusions or recommendations for future research. Thus, the widespread uptake of this tool is testimony to its crucial role in driving evidence-based research practice, and enabling a more thorough comprehension of complex topics across numerous domains.

This paper aims to bridge the gap by systematically reviewing the existing literature on the application of circular economy principles in property management as a general and not focusing only in Malaysia. The overall aim of this paper is to explore how CE practices are integrated and embedded within the domain of property management. Specifically, this paper examines and presents a comprehensive review of the existing literature on the circular economy, focusing on its relevance and application to the field of property management. Through this review, the study identifies and highlights the key themes, concepts, and practices associated with the implementation of CE principles in property management. By analysing these elements, the paper provides valuable insights into how CE frameworks contribute to more sustainable and resource-efficient practices within the property management sector, paving the way for innovative approaches and improved environmental outcomes in the built environment.

GENERAL OVERVIEW

Circular Economy

The circular economy (CE) is an innovative economic model that seeks to redefine growth by focusing on positive society-wide benefits. It is fundamentally about gradually decoupling economic activity from the consumption of finite resources and designing waste out of the system. The circular economy also related to the sustainable model approach where the economic activity prioritizes enhanced resource efficiency and environmental conservation. The circular economy aims to keep materials and products in continuous use through strategies like redesign, repair, recycle, repair, remanufacturer, refurbish and regenerate. This paradigm shift is essential for reducing waste, minimizing resource extraction, and lessening environmental harm, especially in an era of growing concern about climate change, resource depletion, greenhouse and pollution.

At the core of the circular economy are three fundamental principles. First is the design out waste and pollution principle encourage businesses and manufacturers to think beyond short-term gains by designing products and systems that minimize environmental impact while maximizing economic benefits (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Mihai et al., 2018; Moric et al., 2020a). This involves using sustainable materials and ensuring that products are designed to be easily disassembled, repaired, or recycled at the end of their life cycle. Second is where the principle of keeping products and materials in use extends the value of resources by promoting practices like repairing, remanufacturing, and refurbishing instead of simply disposing of items when they are no longer needed. Finally, the circular economy also emphasizes regenerating natural systems, striving to restore ecosystems and reduce environmental degradation through sustainable practices such as regenerative agriculture, which can improve soil health and biodiversity. The transition towards CE is gaining significant momentum worldwide, as businesses across various sectors recognize the need for sustainable practices and innovative solutions to address climate change and improve resource efficiency (Goyal et al., 2016; Ting et al., 2023)

The benefits of adopting a circular economy are multifarious. For instance, the integration of Industry 4.0 technologies has been identified as a facilitator for circular economy practices, enabling smarter manufacturing processes that contribute to sustainability (Awan et al., 2021; Kaswan et al., 2023).  Environmental sustainability is perhaps the most significant advantage, as this model dramatically reduces waste, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions by keeping resources in circulation for as long as possible. For example, products designed with durability and reuse in mind require fewer raw materials, which in turn reduces the need for resource extraction and lowers emissions from production processes. Furthermore, the circular economy enhances economic efficiency by lowering production costs and extending the lifespan of products, thus benefiting both businesses and consumers. Job creation is another positive outcome, as new opportunities emerge in areas like product repair, remanufacturing, and recycling. Moreover, the circular economy is increasingly recognized as a strategic economic model that can drive innovation and competitiveness among firms, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Moric et al., 2020b; Rizos et al., 2016)

In conclusion, the circular economy represents a forward-thinking approach to economic activity that balances economic growth with environmental stewardship. By keeping products, materials, and resources in use for as long as possible, the circular economy provides a path to a more sustainable and equitable future. The challenge now lies in scaling these practices and ensuring that they become the norm, rather than the exception, in industries worldwide. The need for innovative solutions in product design and recycling processes can also drive innovation, encouraging companies to explore new technologies and business models that align with circular economy principles. In summary, the full benefits of the circular economy can only be achieved through collective effort—governments, businesses, and individuals must work together to create the conditions necessary for a sustainable future

Definition of Circular Economy

The concept of the circular economy (CE) represents a transformative approach to economic development that seeks to severalize growth from resource consumption and environmental degradation. CE is characterized by its focus on sustainability, resource efficiency, and the minimization of waste through strategies such as recycling, reusing, and remanufacturing. This model contrasts sharply with the traditional linear economy, which follows a “take-make-dispose” paradigm, leading to significant resource depletion and environmental harm (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Jones & Comfort, 2017)).

At its core, the circular economy aims to create closed-loop systems where materials are continuously cycled back into the production process. This involves not only the recycling of materials but also the redesign of products and processes to facilitate reuse and reduce waste generation (Ahmed et al., 2022; Bocken et al., 2022). It supports economic resilience by maximizing the value of resources at each stage, from production to end-of-life. For instance, the CE promotes the idea of viewing waste as a resource, thereby encouraging industries to innovate in their supply chains and product designs to enhance sustainability (Jaya Surya R & Dr. Kranti Kumar M, 2021; Nikanorova & Stankevičienė, 2020)The integration of circular principles into business models can lead to increased profitability and competitive advantage, as companies that adopt these practices often experience reduced costs associated with raw material procurement and waste management (Brendzel-Skowera, 2021; Popović & Radivojević, 2022)Moreover, the circular economy is not merely an environmental strategy; it encompasses economic and social dimensions as well. It emphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement and collaboration across sectors to foster a culture of sustainability (Barna et al., 2023; Jakhar et al., 2019) The CE framework encourages businesses to rethink their operational strategies, focusing on long-term value creation rather than short-term gains. This shift is essential for achieving broader sustainability goals, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Murti et al., 2022).

Legislation and policy frameworks play a crucial role in facilitating the transition to a circular economy. Governments can incentivize circular practices through regulations that promote recycling, waste reduction, and sustainable resource management(Garcés-Ayerbe et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2018) The success of circular economy initiatives often hinges on the establishment of supportive policies that encourage innovation and the adoption of sustainable practices across industries (Garcés-Ayerbe et al., 2019).

In summary, the circular economy is a comprehensive model that seeks to redefine economic growth by prioritizing sustainability, resource efficiency, and waste minimization. It also may involve a systemic change in how products are designed, produced, and consumed, aiming to create a regenerative economy that benefits  both the environment and society (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Murray et al., 2015; Namita Kapoor, 2021) By focusing on regeneration and renewal, the circular economy aims to create a balanced system that benefits both the economy and the environment, offering a roadmap for industries and societies to transition toward a more sustainable and resource-efficient future.

Circular Economy in Built Environment

The concept of a circular economy (CE) within the built environment has gained significant adherence in recent years, driven by the urgent need to address the environmental impacts associated with standard linear economic models. The built environment is a major contributor to resource consumption and waste generation, which necessitates a major change toward more sustainable practices. CE aims to narrow, slow, and close resource loops, thereby maximizing the utility and value of materials throughout their lifecycle (Eberhardt et al., 2020) This is achieved through practices such as reuse, recycling, and designing for disassembly, ensuring that buildings, materials, and components can be repurposed or recycled at the end of their life cycle, rather than being sent to landfills.

The transition to a circular economy in the built environment is complex, as buildings are inherently intricate products that do not conform to the standardization typical of mass manufacturing. (Pomponi & Moncaster, 2019) also mention that this complexity necessitates tailored approaches to facilitate circularity in construction practices. The British Standard BS 8001, which provides a framework for implementing circular economy principles, represents a critical step in guiding the construction industry toward more sustainable practices (Pomponi & Moncaster, 2019) However, despite the existence of such frameworks, the practical application of CE principles in the built environment remains limited, with much of the focus historically placed on recycling rather than on the reuse of materials (Adams et al., 2017).

Research indicates that while recycling construction materials is essential, there is a pressing approach needed to enhance the reuse of products and components. This approach not only seeks to minimize waste but also emphasizes the importance of reusing and recycling materials, which is particularly relevant in the construction sector where construction and demolition waste (CDW) constitutes a significant portion of total waste generated (Adams et al., 2017). The current trend shows a decline in the materials reclaimed for reuse in the UK, highlighting a gap in the effective implementation of circular economy practices (Adams et al., 2017). Furthermore, the prevention of CDW is increasingly recognized as a priority, necessitating more research and innovative design strategies that prioritize circularity from the outset of construction projects (Adams et al., 2017). The integration of value assessment tools can play a pivotal role in facilitating this transition by enabling stakeholders to evaluate the environmental and economic benefits of circular practices (Atapattu & Rosenfeld, 2022).

In conclusion, the transition to a circular economy in the built environment is not only necessary but also achievable through a combination of tailored approaches, effective business models, supportive policies, and enhanced awareness among stakeholders. The integration of circular economy principles into construction practices can lead to significant reductions in resource consumption and waste generation, ultimately contributing to a more sustainable built environment. Despite the potential benefits, there are challenges to implementing the circular economy in construction. The high upfront costs of sustainable materials and technologies can be a barrier, especially for smaller developers. Furthermore, standardizing processes for material recovery and recycling remains a challenge, as there are often inconsistencies in how materials are reused or recycled. Overcoming these challenges will require greater collaboration across industries, stronger policies, and increased awareness among stakeholders. By rethinking how buildings are designed, constructed, and deconstructed, the construction industry can move towards a more sustainable and resource-efficient future. As the industry continues to evolve, ongoing research and collaboration will be essential in overcoming the challenges associated with implementing circular economy practices in the built environment.

Circular Economy in Property Management

The integration of circular economy (CE) principles into property management is focussed on addressing the importance and need for sustainability in the built environment. The circular economy emphasizes the importance of resource efficiency, waste reduction, and the maximization of material utility throughout the lifecycle of properties. This shift from traditional linear models, which typically follow a take-make-dispose paradigm, to a circular approach can significantly enhance the sustainability of property management practices (Fateye et al., 2023; Romero-Hernández & Romero, 2018) By adopting CE principles, property managers can not only improve environmental outcomes but also drive economic benefits through cost savings and increased asset value (Hopkins et al., 2016; Romero-Hernández & Romero, 2018).

One of the critical components of implementing a circular economy in property management is the adoption of Sustainable Management Practices (SMP). These practices encompass various aspects, including sustainable procurement, operational efficiency, maintenance management, and resource management (Fateye et al., 2023). For instance, the study conducted by Fateye et al. highlights the significance of sustainable procurement in office properties, where property managers ranked their level of adoption of various SMP components (Fateye et al., 2023). This indicates that property managers are increasingly recognizing the importance of integrating sustainability practices into their operational frameworks, which is essential for fostering a circular economy. Furthermore, the prioritization of sustainability in property management is not merely a trend but a necessity for enhancing the longevity and value of properties.

To further accelerate the adoption of circular economy in property management, researchers emphasize the need for strategic management practices that prioritize agility, innovation, and collaboration (Francisca L. Aranda, 2023; Мельник & Злотнік, 2023). Additionally, the role of government policies and regulations in creating an enabling environment for circular economy adoption is crucial (Tran et al., 2023; Sehnem et al., 2021). With growing consciousness about the sustainability issues among stakeholders, it is possible to force companies to apply a circular economy in their organisation by changing purchasing decisions (Bucur, 2023) Thus, when they choose durable and repairable products, they have already contribute towards creating a demand for circular economy offerings, thus strengthening the transition towards sustainable consumption patterns (Bucur, 2023) In summary, the adoption of circular economy principles in property management can contribute to more sustainable and resource-efficient practices, but it requires a comprehensive approach that addresses technical, organizational, and regulatory challenges. Successful implementation can unlock economic, environmental, and social benefits for property management organizations and the broader community.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study utilized an interpretive philosophical approach, with a systematic literature review (SLR) as the primary analytical method. Published articles served as the main elements of analysis, allowing for a detailed examination of concepts and ideas related to the circular economy (CE) within property management. By systematically identifying and synthesizing existing literature, this approach facilitated the discovery of key themes and barriers to CE adoption in property management, without the need for meta-analysis. The SLR followed an evidence-based PRISMA framework, as illustrated in Figure 1, to ensure a comprehensive and transparent review process.

One of the significant advantages of employing SLRs is their ability to integrate findings from various studies, thus offering a holistic view of the existing knowledge landscape. The Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is an essential methodology in research that serves multiple critical functions. Primarily, it provides a structured approach to identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing existing literature relevant to a specific research question or topic area. This systematic approach ensures that the review is comprehensive and minimizes bias, which is often a limitation in traditional narrative reviews (Ourzik, 2020; Dinter et al., 2021). By adhering to a transparent and reproducible process, SLRs enhance the reliability of the findings and contribute to the development of a robust theoretical framework within a given field (Muna et al., 2023)

PRISMA is a widely recognized and adopted framework for conducting and reporting SLRs (Moher et al., 2016; Pati & Lorusso, 2018; Stiti & Ben Rajeb, 2022) However, it is important to note that while PRISMA is widely used in the context of SLRs, it was originally developed for reviews of randomized controlled trials in the medical and healthcare fields (Stiti & Ben Rajeb, 2022) Some researchers have adapted the PRISMA framework to fit the needs of other disciplines, such as social sciences and computer science (Ab Wahab et al., 2022; Stiti & Ben Rajeb, 2022) This PRISMA structure and main idea cite from (Oluleye et al., 2022) and cultivated by the authors has focusing on the integration of circular economy (CE) practices in property management globally can be structured to meet academic rigor and clarity. The scope of the review covering research from 2014 to 2024 and stressing the international perspective. A brief overview of the PRISMA framework used to guide the review process is essential to orient readers.

Figure 1: PRISMA Literature Review Flow Diagram (Oluleye et al., 2022)

The methodology section outlines are broken down into PRISMA’s key steps. First, it explains the data sources and search strategy, identifying SCOPUS and WOS as the database for retrieving relevant articles. The inclusion of a robust search strategy, with keywords such as Circular Economy, Built Environment, Literature Review, PRISMA Systematic Review, Sustainability, Property Management, Facilities Management, Building Management, Real Estate Management and Real Estate to ensures a comprehensive search. Criteria for article selection, including language (English) and publication type, which is article journal and open access, must also be described.

Next, the screening phase follows, where the duplicates are removed and then the review studies are evaluated for their relevance based on titles and abstracts. A filter was applied to include only studies published within the last 10 years start (2014-2024) to ensure the relevance and timeliness of the selected literature Stricter eligibility criteria are applied in this step, and the final list of studies is generated by filtering those most suited to the research question. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are defined, using Boolean operators as well to enable users to combine and refine search terms to reduce or expand search results (Lau & Goh, 2006) with the purpose of collecting as much literature as possible.

Furthermore, Boolean operators were utilized to refine the search results and ensure the selection of studies closely aligned with the research objectives (Lau & Goh, 2006) Boolean operators work by combining keywords into more complex search queries by combining keywords with operators such as ‘AND,’ ‘OR,’ and ‘NOT,’ the search strategy was optimized to filter out irrelevant studies while retaining those that met the inclusion criteria. This step needs to focusing on studies directly relevant to CE practices in property management while excluding unrelated sectors, such as construction will be filtered and discarded if not needed, unless there are overlaps in CE principles.

Table 1: The Boolean Query in Scopus and WOS Database (Khairul Hafezad Abdullah, 2024)

Lastly, the inclusion phase consists of a thorough appraisal of the full texts of the included studies to determine their relevance, quality, and suitability with respect to the study aims. Studies that meet all inclusion criteria and are of sufficient quality are selected for data extraction and synthesis. This step-by-step method helps to ensure transparency and reproducibility, leading to a final list of high-quality, relevant studies for inclusion in the systematic review or meta-analysis. A PRISMA flow diagram is crucial in showing the number of articles identified, screened and included in the final synthesis. The section further explores key themes and findings from the reviewed studies, such as CE strategies, challenges in implementation towards Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s), and variations in practices in real estate especially focused on property management across the regions.

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

The analysis of the dataset was conducted using Scientopy and VOS viewer to summarize the key findings and visualize the relationships within the data. Scientopy was used to identify trends, citation patterns, and influential publications from various background of countries within the selected literature. VOS viewer, on the other hand, enabled the creation of bibliometric maps to explore co-occurrence of keywords, co-authorship networks, and thematic clusters. These tools provided a comprehensive overview of the research landscape, highlighting dominant themes, research gaps, and the connections between key concepts in the dataset.

First finding implicate from the word cloud represents the most frequent author keywords extracted from a dataset which highlighting significant themes in the literature. The most prominent keyword is “Sustainability”, which indicates that a large portion of the studies focus on sustainable practices or concepts. Closely related terms like “Sustainable development” further emphasize the importance of sustainability as a central theme. Additionally, keywords such as “Facility management”, “Facilities management”, and “Property management” suggest a strong focus on management disciplines, particularly in asset management, operational efficiency, and real estate contexts. The presence of “Building information modelling” and its abbreviation “BIM” reflects the growing role of advanced technologies in the building and facility management sectors, underlining the importance of innovation and technology integration. Supporting themes, such as “real estate” and “management”, appear less frequently but still contribute to the broader focus of the literature. Overall, the word cloud highlights the dominance of sustainability and management practices, with strong technological integration, aligning with trends in property and facility management research.

Figure 2: Word Cloud represent most frequent keyword in research (Authors, 2024)

Next, the graph presents the evolution of research publications by country, focusing on the accumulative number of documents over time (left plot) and the average documents per year and percentage of recent publications (right plot). For Malaysia, the data shows a notable upward trend in publications since 2016, with a significant increase in research output over the years, indicating growing interest and contributions to the field.

In the left plot, Malaysia’s cumulative publications have steadily risen, placing it among the mid-tier countries in terms of total output. However, it lags countries like China, the United Kingdom, and the United States, which have shown a steeper increase in recent years. The right plot further highlights Malaysia’s research activity. Malaysia achieves an average of approximately 4 documents per year during the 2022–2023 period, showing steady performance. Its percentage of documents published in the last two years is around 40%, reflecting Malaysia’s active and ongoing research contributions, particularly in recent years.

This trend demonstrates Malaysia’s increasing role in the field, potentially driven by targeted research efforts, funding, or growing academic interest. While Malaysia does not lead globally, its recent output and consistent contributions position it as an emerging player in the research landscape.

Figure 3: Top active countries in research related to circular economy in property management (Authors, 2024)

However, based on the interpretation from VOS viewer, the United States and Unite Kingdom are the largest and most central nodes, indicating it is the most prominent countries in terms of research output or collaboration in this network. It is highly connected with many other countries, suggesting a strong international collaboration work. Additionally, another significant node like Malaysia, Australia and China indicate high research activity and collaboration, particularly are within the Asean region.

Additionally collaborative relationships can be seen throughout the United Kingdom where the country has numerous connections, particularly strong links with countries like the United States, China and Malaysia. Australia, South Africa and Netherlands. This reflects it as central role in global research network. Netherland and United Kingdom have a well establish network of collaborations, particularly within Europe but also globally.

Figure 4: Cluster based on the recent scope of study (Authors, 2024)

The network map developed using VOS viewer illustrates global research collaborations in the field of the circular economy and sustainability within the built environment. Each node in the map depicts a country, while the links between them signify co-authorship, shared citations, or joint work. Larger nodes, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, imply these countries are vital to the research network, suggesting their great influence and leadership in this subject. These countries presumably contribute considerably through research output, funding, and international partnerships. In contrast, smaller and more peripheral nodes, such as Malaysia and South Africa, show rising contributions to this area of study, however with relatively fewer international connections.

This visualization also depicts distinct clusters of countries, highlighting regional or theme partnerships. For instance, Scandinavian countries like Norway and Sweden look related, possibly reflecting common environmental concerns and proximity which stimulate coordinated research efforts. Similarly, the significant linkages between the United Kingdom, China, and Australia show active relationships and a common interest on subjects relating to circular economy practices and sustainability.

In addition, the graphic underlines the necessity of international collaboration in attaining global sustainability objectives. While the map displays the leadership of established nations, it also highlights the growing interest and potential of emerging countries, which might play a crucial role in broadening perspectives and tackling specific concerns. By supporting more equitable collaborations, particularly with underrepresented regions, the field can obtain a more comprehensive and impactful understanding of the circular economy in the built environment. This network map thus serves as a great tool to identify existing trends and gaps in worldwide research relationships, offering a basis for continued collaboration and innovation.

Figure 5: List of Article Included in Prisma Finding (Authors, 2025)

Collectively, the studies finding through PRISMA method demonstrate how important framework, laws, and modern technology are crucial for promoting the circular economy (CE) in the built environment. The necessity of strong stakeholder engagement, support from the government, and digital technologies like Building Information Modelling (BIM) is highlighted by the numerous studies that concentrate on construction, design, and material lifecycle management. Nevertheless, despite this abundance of research, a significant gap remains whereas none of the studies particularly address the application of CE principles in the field of property management. This offers a great opportunity for the study because property management is an essential component of preserving sustainability in building operational phase, which includes things like waste management, energy efficiency, and tenant participation.

There are several past studies as per highlighted that are especially pertinent to the objective of this paper. A conceptual model for CE implementation is presented in the first study by Ho et al., (2024) which was created using local case studies and a survey of the literature. The paper notes that although this model offers a fundamental framework for comprehending CE integration, empirical application is required to take into consideration regional differences in building methods, cultural customs, and environmental circumstances. Property management, whose operational procedures frequently vary by location and rely significantly on local laws and community demands, is a good fit for this discovery.

The second study, by (Davari et al., 2023) identifies a traceability framework designed to enable circularity in the built asset industry. This framework emphasizes tracking materials and products throughout their lifecycle, supported by advanced digital tools and open-access platforms. It also identifies barriers such as financial, organizational, and technical challenges that need to be overcome to implement CE practices effectively. This framework has strong implications for property management, as it could be adapted to monitor building operations, manage waste streams, and ensure the ongoing sustainability of properties. For instance, integrating traceability tools into property management could help track energy usage, monitor tenant compliance with waste segregation policies, and identify opportunities for retrofitting buildings to improve resource efficiency.

Next, the research by Ghafourian et al., (2021) underscores the necessity of emphasizing economic considerations within the waste management hierarchy (WMH) to enhance construction and demolition waste management (CDWM) in Malaysia. The study underscores the necessity for policies that harmonize economic, social, environmental, and administrative factors, thereby indirectly aligning with the tenets of the circular economy (CE). Circular economy practices, including resource recovery, waste minimization, and sustainable design, align with the objective of enhancing waste management. The study emphasizes the development of new moderators and factors for long-term planning, highlighting the necessity for comprehensive frameworks that promote circularity in the construction industry.

Lynch (2022) highlights the potential of deconstruction as a transformative practice within the circular economy (CE) framework for the construction industry. This method aligns with circular economy principles by recovering materials through ‘unbuilding’ and setting up formal deconstruction hubs, thereby minimizing waste and maximizing resource reuse. The study underscores substantial challenges, including insufficient policy support, funding, skilled labour, and salvage networks. These obstacles hinder the incorporation of                deconstruction into holistic circular economy frameworks, requiring enhanced policy initiatives and governmental investments that foster its implementation and prevent superficial “greenwashing” practices.

Di Vaio et al., (2023) examine the amalgamation of accounting and accountability models in the context of the circular economy (CE) and waste management. It analyses how accounting practices can facilitate Circular Economy by monitoring resource utilization, minimizing waste, and enhancing recycling initiatives. The study emphasizes the necessity of transparent and standardized accountability systems to accurately measure and report circular economy performance, ensuring that businesses adhere to circular economy principles and support sustainability objectives. This emphasis on systematic monitoring and documentation establishes a vital basis for overseeing CE practices across diverse sectors.

The research conducted by Ibn-Mohammed et al., (2021) Rodríguez-Antón & Alonso-Almeida, (2020)  illustrates how the implementation of circular economy (CE) principles during the COVID-19 pandemic underscored the resilience of sectors that embraced these strategy Ibn-Mohammed et al., (2021) emphasize the significance of Circular Economy (CE) in mitigating the inefficiencies revealed by the pandemic, including supply chain disruptions, through the advocacy of sustainable practices such as green logistics, bio-based materials, and diminished environmental impact Rodríguez-Antón & Alonso-Almeida, (2020) highlight that public-private collaboration and adaptive recovery strategies, in accordance with CE principles, assisted Spain’s tourism sector in alleviating the crisis. Collectively, these studies indicate that sectors implementing circular economy practices—such as resource efficiency, sustainable design, and localized solutions—were more adept at navigating the challenges posed by the pandemic, underscoring the significance of the circular economy in encouraging resilience and ensuring long-term sustainability.

In conclusion, the particular focus of study not only enhances current research but also broadens the discourse into a vital yet insufficiently studied area, highlighting emerging trends and prospects within the scope of circular economy principles in property management. This research provides a comprehensive grasp of the practical applications and enduring advantages of implementing circular economy techniques in the built environment through the exploration of undiscovered frontiers. Moreover, it offers essential insights for policymakers, property managers, developers, investors, and other significant stakeholders, enabling them to make educated decisions that enhance sustainability, minimize waste, and improve resource efficiency within their respective functions. This contribution is especially relevant as the built environment encounters increasing demands to conform to global sustainability objectives and adopt creative strategies for a more sustainable future.

CIRCULAR ECONOMY IN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

The successful deployment of a circular economy in the built environment rests on the creation of effective business models. These models must comply with the concepts of CE, which advocate for the reduction of waste and the intentional use of resources (Sariatli, 2017). A basic principle of the circular economy in construction is to design for durability and flexibility, where buildings are created to survive longer and adapt to changing needs. Modular designs, for example, allow buildings to be easily enlarged or changed without the need for demolition. This versatility decreases the demand for new materials and minimizes waste. The building industry must embrace creative solutions that not only focus on material efficiency but also address the larger ramifications of resource utilization on social and environmental systems (Sariatli, 2017).

In property management, the incorporation of circular economy (CE) principles is crucial for improving sustainability, minimizing waste, and maximizing resource efficiency throughout the lifecycle of buildings. The research conducted by Ghafourian et al. (2021) underscores the significance of implementing a waste management hierarchy (WMH) that emphasizes resource recovery, applicable to property management practices. By emphasizing the repurposing of materials during renovations and enhancing energy efficiency, property managers can reduce construction and demolition waste, thereby promoting sustainable building practices and aligning with the overarching goals of the waste management hierarchy. This method highlights the crucial function of property management in advancing sustainability in the constructed environment.

Lynch (2022) examines the potential of deconstruction practices as a viable strategy in the circular economy for the construction industry. Property managers can incorporate deconstruction into property management via adaptive reuse of structures, renovations, and maintenance, thereby minimizing waste and improving resource recovery. The research emphasizes the necessity for explicit protocols, collaborative recovery networks, and training to guarantee the effective execution of deconstruction. By endorsing such practices, property management not only reduces environmental impacts but also enhances the economic value of property assets, thereby aligning with circular economy principles.

Furthermore, the study by Di Vaio et al. (2021) underscores the significance of accounting and accountability frameworks in facilitating the effective execution of circular economy practices. In property management, implementing circular economy-focused accounting frameworks can assess resource efficiency, monitor waste management initiatives, and guarantee adherence to sustainability standards. This clarity in assessing environmental and economic effects cultivates stakeholder confidence and promotes cooperation in attaining enduring sustainability objectives. Aligning property management with circular economy principles through effective accounting practices enables a transparent and measurable approach to sustainability, thereby enhancing the role of property management in promoting circularity within the built environment.

The study by (Iyer-Raniga et al., 2023) is relevant to circular economy (CE) research in property management, emphasizing the significance of proactive design strategies to mitigate waste at the source, rather than concentrating exclusively on end-of-life waste management. In property management, similar principles can be implemented by prioritizing the design and operational stages of buildings to reduce waste production, foster resource efficiency, and augment the lifecycle value of properties. The results emphasized that the built environment necessitates systemic alterations underpinned by strong policies and governance. This insight corresponds with the research indicating that property management is essential for the implementation and managing with Circular Economy principles throughout a building’s lifecycle, encompassing design, construction, operation, and refurbishment.

Furthermore, research by Lin and Shih highlights that the sustainability of a building is dependent upon good maintenance and management strategies that consider economic, environmental, and social dimensions (Lin lam& Shih, 2020). By implementing the circular economy practices, property managers can extend the life of building components, such as Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning System (HVA) systems, lighting, or structural elements, by assimilating preventive maintenance and refurbishment strategies rather than replacing them outright. This strategy decreases both the environmental and financial expenses connected with material usage and trash generation. For instance, renovating older buildings with energy-efficient systems or utilizing recycled materials during restorations aids in lowering resource usage while maintaining the building’s worth. This comprehensive approach guarantees that properties are not only functional but also contribute positively to their surroundings and the greater society. The life cycle of a building, from design to demolition, must be maintained with sustainability in mind, ensuring that resources are used efficiently and waste is reduced (Lin & Shih, 2020; Lam, 2019).

In terms of the role of policy and regulatory frameworks cannot be underestimated in encouraging circular economy practices. Governments and legislators must develop suitable settings that incentivize the adoption of CE principles throughout the building industry (Hopkinson et al., 2018) This involves implementing legislation that ease the recycling of CDW and providing financial incentives for enterprises that emphasize sustainable operations (Hu et al., 2018) The obstacles associated with shifting from a linear to a circular economy are diverse, involving technical, logistical, and economic hurdles that must be solved by coordinated efforts among stakeholders (Hopkinson et al., 2018). Prior research has underscored the essential importance of comprehensive and clearly defined policies in enabling the effective execution of circular economy practices, especially regarding regulations, frameworks, and policy directives. Nonetheless, a significant deficiency persists in the development of long-term policies that guarantee the enduring incorporation of circular economy principles. It is essential for stakeholders and practitioners to comprehend the current policies and acknowledge the wider policy ramifications and the necessity for proactive corporate responsibility (Davari et al., 2023; Di Vaio et al., 2023; Dickson et al., 2023; Domingo-Calabuig et al., 2024; Ghafourian et al., 2021b; Gomis et al., 2023; Helmie Shahreen Mohd Ali et al., 2024; Ho et al., 2024; Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2021; Rodríguez-Antón & Alonso-Almeida, 2020; Xie et al., 2022).

The emphasis on collaboration and policy alignment corresponds with the goal of ascertaining how circular economy practices can be efficiently integrated into property management frameworks to improve sustainability and resilience, especially in addressing unexpected challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic (Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2021; Rodríguez-Antón & Alonso-Almeida, 2020) In times of crisis, property management encounters challenges such as variable occupancy rates, resource deficiencies, and heightened operational demands. Implementing circular economy practices—such as optimizing resource utilization, repurposing spaces, and incorporating flexible, sustainable design—enables property management to enhance its adaptability to abrupt changes, reduce risks, and maintain operational continuity. This strategy enhances the sector’s readiness for future crises while also promoting long-term sustainability objectives. By doing so, all the parties may assist in formulating comprehensive strategies that promote a more sustainable and circular methodology in the built environment especially in property management. In addition, circular economy not only addresses environmental concerns but also generates economic opportunities, making it a crucial approach for the future of urban development and real estate. As urbanization continue to grow, implementing circular methods in building will be vital for constructing sustainable, resilient, and adaptable urban areas.

CONCLUSION

This systematic analysis highlights the critical necessity of incorporating circular economy (CE) principles into property management practices to improve sustainability and resource efficiency in the built environment. The findings indicate that Circular Economy (CE) is increasingly recognized globally as a transformative framework that tackles significant issues such as waste reduction, resource optimization, and the generation of sustainable value in the property management sector. In the last ten years, considerable progress has been achieved in investigating the applications of CE; nonetheless, notable deficiencies persist in its practical execution. There is a necessity for standardized guidelines and region-specific strategies to ensure the effective integration of circular economy principles across various property management contexts, promoting a more sustainable and resilient built environment.

Based on the finding we can see that since the last five years, academic research has increasingly focused on the circular economy, emphasizing its potential to revolutionize multiple sectors. Nonetheless, a significant deficiency of targeted research persists in the field of property management. This highlights the need for additional scholarly research on the effective integration of circular economy principles into property management practices, providing insights that can enhance sustainability and operational efficiency in the sector. The research study indicates the various approaches implemented across different contexts, illustrating that while CE principles are generally applicable, their implementation must incorporate local market dynamics, legal frameworks, and cultural considerations. These insights provide significant direction for property managers, regulators, and researchers in recognizing the potential of CE to generate innovation and resilience in property management.

Looking forward, this review underlines the necessity for future research to focus on bridging the gap between theoretical frameworks and practical implementations with emphasis on circular economy, notably in real estate. Studies also should focus on exploring interdisciplinary collaborations, evaluating the economic and environmental benefits of CE in property management, and building scalable models for industry adoption. The industry increasingly acknowledges the transformative potential of CE; thus, research must concentrate on creating scalable, region-specific models and guidelines to enable effective implementation. Critical domains for additional investigation encompass utilizing technological advancements, formulating conducive policy frameworks, and analysing case studies of effective circular economy implementation. Moreover, promoting stakeholder engagement, education, and addressing cultural implications will be essential for attaining widespread adoption. By exploring these research avenues, the property management sector can harness the economic, environmental, and social advantages of circular economy principles, fostering a more sustainable, efficient, and resilient built environment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors extend their heartfelt gratitude to the Department of Real Estate, University Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), for supporting this research through a full-time MSc studentship under the Nexus Young Researcher (NYR) scheme. We are also deeply appreciated of the editors and reviewers for their invaluable feedback. This research was funded by University Teknologi Malaysia and Ministry of Education through the UTM Encouragement Grant (Cost Center No: Q.J130000.3852.31J56) and the Fundamental Research Grant (FRGS) (Cost Center No: R.J130000.7852.5F724).

REFERENCE

1. Ab Wahab, M. K., Zulkifli, H., & Abdul Razak, K. (2022). Impact of Philosophy for Children and Its Challenges: A Systematic Review. In Children (Vol. 9, Issue 11). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). https://doi.org/10.3390/children9111671
2. Adams, K. T., Osmani, M., Thorpe, T., & Thornback, J. (2017). Circular economy in construction: Current awareness, challenges and enablers. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Waste and Resource Management, 170(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1680/jwarm.16.00011
3. Ahmed, Z., Mahmud, S., & Acet, D. H. (2022). Circular economy model for developing countries: evidence from Bangladesh. In Heliyon (Vol. 8, Issue 5). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09530
4. Atapattu, S. N., & Rosenfeld, J. M. (2022). Analytical derivatizations in environmental analysis. Journal of Chromatography A, 1678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2022.463348
5. Awan, U., Sroufe, R., & Shahbaz, M. (2021). Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: A literature review and recommendations for future research. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(4), 2038–2060. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2731
6. Barna, C., Zbuchea, A., & Stănescu, S. (2023). Social economy enterprises contributing to the circular economy and the green transition in Romania. CIRIEC-Espana Revista de Economia Publica, Social y Cooperativa, 107, 47–69. https://doi.org/10.7203/CIRIEC-E.107.21738
7. Bocken, N. M. P., Niessen, L., & Short, S. W. (2022). The Sufficiency-Based Circular Economy—An Analysis of 150 Companies. Frontiers in Sustainability, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.899289
8. Brendzel-Skowera, K. (2021). Circular economy business models in the sme sector. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137059
9. Bucur, L.-M. (2023). Exploring the Role of Consumers in Promoting a Circular Economy: Increasing Awareness and Engagement. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 17(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2023-0006
10. Davari, S., Jaberi, M., Yousfi, A., & Poirier, E. (2023). A Traceability Framework to Enable Circularity in the Built Environment. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108278
11. Di Vaio, A., Hasan, S., Palladino, R., & Hassan, R. (2023). The transition towards circular economy and waste within accounting and accountability models: a systematic literature review and conceptual framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(1), 734–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02078-5
12. Dickson, E. M., Hastings, A., & Smith, J. (2023). Energy production from municipal solid waste in low to middle income countries: a case study of how to build a circular economy in Abuja, Nigeria. Frontiers in Sustainability, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1173474
13. Domingo-Calabuig, D., Rivera-Linares, J., Lizondo-Sevilla, L., & Alapont-Ramón, J. L. (2024). Design strategies for circularity: Km0 architecture in the Spanish Mediterranean. Open House International. https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-08-2023-0190
14. Eberhardt, L. C. M., van Stijn, A., Rasmussen, F. N., Birkved, M., & Birgisdottir, H. (2020). Development of a life cycle assessment allocation approach for circular economy in the built environment. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(22), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229579
15. Fateye, T. B., Araloyin, F. M., Adedokun, A. R., & Oluwole, T. G. (2023). Sustainable Management Practice (SMP) of Green Features in Office Property in Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development, 16(2), 13. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v16n2p13
16. Francisca L. Aranda, M. Z., B. L. R. (2023). Polymers in Circular Economy: A Comprehensive Approach to Sustainability.  An overview.
17. Garcés-Ayerbe, C., Rivera-Torres, P., Suárez-Perales, I., & Hiz, D. I. L. D. La. (2019). Is it possible to change from a linear to a circular economy? An overview of opportunities and barriers for European small and medium-sized enterprise companies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050851
18. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy – A new sustainability paradigm? In Journal of Cleaner Production (Vol. 143, pp. 757–768). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
19. Ghafourian, K., Kabirifar, K., Mahdiyar, A., Yazdani, M., Ismail, S., & Tam, V. W. Y. (2021a). A synthesis of express analytic hierarchy process (EAHP) and partial least squares-structural equations modelling (PLS-SEM) for sustainable construction and demolition waste management assessment: The case of Malaysia. Recycling, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling6040073
20. Ghafourian, K., Kabirifar, K., Mahdiyar, A., Yazdani, M., Ismail, S., & Tam, V. W. Y. (2021b). A synthesis of express analytic hierarchy process (EAHP) and partial least squares-structural equations modeling (PLS-SEM) for sustainable construction and demolition waste management assessment: The case of Malaysia. Recycling, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling6040073
21. Gomis, K., Kahandawa, R., & Jayasinghe, R. S. (2023). Scient metric Analysis of the Global Scientific Literature on Circularity Indicators in the Construction and Built Environment Sector. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010728
22. Goyal, S., Esposito, M., & Kapoor, A. (2016). Circular economy business models in developing economies: Lessons from India on reduce, recycle, and reuse paradigms. Thunderbird International Business Review, 60(5), 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.21883
23. Helmie Shahreen Mohd Ali, N., Siang Lee, Y., Rizal Alias, A., & Rahman, R. A. (2024). Integration Of Circular Economy into Design and Construction of Infrastructure Projects in Malaysia: Barriers and CountermeasurES. In Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners (Vol. 22).
24. Ho, O., Iyer-Raniga, U., Sadykova, C., Balasooriya, M., Sylva, K., Dissanayaka, M., Sukwanchai, K., Pal, I., Bhatia, A., Jain, D., & Sivapalan, S. (2024). A conceptual model for integrating circular economy in the built environment: An analysis of literature and local-based case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141516
25. Hopkins, E. A., Read, D. C., & Goss, R. C. (2016). Promoting sustainability in the United States multifamily property management industry. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 32(2), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-016-9516-3
26. Hopkinson, P., Zils, M., Hawkins, P., & Roper, S. (2018). Managing a Complex Global Circular Economy Business Model: Opportunities and Challenges. California Management Review, 60(3), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618764692
27. Hu, Y., He, X., & Poustie, M. (2018). Can legislation promote a circular economy? A material flow-based evaluation of the circular degree of the Chinese economy. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040990
28. Ibn-Mohammed, T., Mustapha, K. B., Godsell, J., Adamu, Z., Babatunde, K. A., Akintade, D. D., Acquaye, A., Fujii, H., Ndiaye, M. M., Yamoah, F. A., & Koh, S. C. L. (2021). A critical review of the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy and ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105169
29. Iyer-Raniga, U., Gajanayake, A., & Ho, O. T. K. (2023). The Transition to a Circular Built Environment in Australia: An Analysis of the Jurisdictional Policy Framework. Environmental Policy and Law, 53(4), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.3233/EPL-220073
30. Jakhar, S. K., Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S., & Kusi-Sarpong, S. (2019). When stakeholder pressure drives the circular economy: Measuring the mediating role of innovation capabilities. Management Decision, 57(4), 904–920. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2018-0990
31. Jaya Surya R, & Dr. Kranti Kumar M. (2021). Implementation of Circular Business Models in Construction and Demolition Waste Management of India. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, 11(2), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.31033/ijemr.11.2.12
32. Jones, P., & Comfort, D. (2017). Towards the circular economy: A commentary on corporate approaches and challenges. In Journal of Public Affairs (Vol. 17, Issue 4). John Wiley and Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1680
33. Kaswan, M. S., Sabale, D. B., & Rathi, R. (2023). Integrating Circular Economy aspects with Manufacturing planning: An MSME perspective. E3S Web of Conferences, 453. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202345301007
34. Khairul Hafezad Abdullah. (2024). Publication Trends on Mobile Learning in Science Education. International Journal of Advanced Research in Education and Society. https://doi.org/10.55057/ijares.2024.6.1.79
35. Lau, E. P., & Goh, D. H. L. (2006). In search of query patterns: A case study of a university OPAC. Information Processing and Management, 42(5), 1316–1329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2006.02.003
36. Lynch, N. (2022). Unbuilding the city: Deconstruction and the circular economy in Vancouver. Environment and Planning A, 54(8), 1586–1603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X221116891
37. Maricuţ, A.-C., & Grădinaru, G.-I. (2023). The Impact of Circular Economy on Economic Development A Review of EU’s Countries. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 17(1), 1487–1496. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2023-0134
38. Mihai, M., Manea, D., Titan, E., & Vasile, V. (2018). Correlations in the european circular economy. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 52(4), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.24818/18423264/52.4.18.05
39. Mihajlov, A., Mladenovic, A., & Jovanovic, F. (2021). Country in transition (Serbia) case: Circular economy starts from waste management. Environmental Research and Technology, 4(1), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.35208/ert.853792
40. Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., Estarli, M., Barrera, E. S. A., Martínez-Rodríguez, R., Baladia, E., Agüero, S. D., Camacho, S., Buhring, K., Herrero-López, A., Gil-González, D. M., Altman, D. G., Booth, A., … Whitlock, E. (2016). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Revista Espanola de Nutricion Humana y Dietetica, 20(2), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
41. Moric, I., Jovanovic, J. Š., Dokovic, R., Pekovic, S., & Perovic, D. (2020a). The effect of phases of the adoption of the circular economy on firm performance: Evidence from 28 EU countries. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062557
42. Moric, I., Jovanovic, J. Š., Dokovic, R., Pekovic, S., & Perovic, D. (2020b). The effect of phases of the adoption of the circular economy on firm performance: Evidence from 28 EU countries. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062557
43. Muna, M., Kurniadi, P., Muslim, H., & Sawitri, D. R. (2023). Association between Parental Variables and Career Decision-Making Self- Efficacy: A Systematic Literature Review.
44. Murray, A., Skene, K., & Haynes, K. (2015). The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Concept and Application in a Global Context. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2
45. Murti, Z., Dharmawan, Siswanto, Soedjati, D., Barkah, A., & Rahardjo, P. (2022). Review of the Circular Economy of Plastic Waste in Various Countries and Potential Applications in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1098(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1098/1/012014
46. Namita Kapoor, Dr. S. J., Dr. D. M. (2021). Understanding of Circular Processes and Its Impact on Indian Economy. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.47750/cibg.2021.27.03.256
47. Nikanorova, M., & Stankevičienė, J. (2020). Development of environmental pillar in the context of circular economy assessment: Baltic Sea Region case. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(1), 1209–1223. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.8.1(81)
48. Oluleye, B. I., Chan, D. W. M., & Olawumi, T. O. (2022). Barriers to circular economy adoption and concomitant implementation strategies in building construction and demolition waste management: A PRISMA and interpretive structural modeling approach. In Habitat International (Vol. 126). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102615
49. Ourzik, V. Y. (2020). Customer Knowledge Management: A Systematic Literature Review and Agenda for Future Research.
50. Pati, D., & Lorusso, L. N. (2018). How to Write a Systematic Review of the Literature. Health Environments Research and Design Journal, 11(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586717747384
51. Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2019). Open Research Online BS 8001 and the built environment: a review and critique. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability (Vol. 172, Issue 3). https://oro.open.ac.uk/55525/
52. Popović, A., & Radivojević, V. (2022). The circular economy: Principles, strategies and goals. Economics of Sustainable Development, 6(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.5937/esd2201045p
53. Rizos, V., Behrens, A., van der Gaast, W., Hofman, E., Ioannou, A., Kafyeke, T., Flamos, A., Rinaldi, R., Papadelis, S., Hirschnitz-Garbers, M., & Topi, C. (2016). Implementation of circular economy business models by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): Barriers and enablers. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111212
54. Rodríguez-Antón, J. M., & Alonso-Almeida, M. D. M. (2020). COVID-19 impacts and recovery strategies: The case of the hospitality industry in Spain. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(20), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208599
55. Romero-Hernández, O., & Romero, S. (2018). Maximizing the value of waste: From waste management to the circular economy. Thunderbird International Business Review, 60(5), 757–764. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.21968
56. Sariatli, F. (2017). Linear Economy Versus Circular Economy: A Comparative and Analyzer Study for Optimization of Economy for Sustainability. Visegrad Journal on Bioeconomy and Sustainable Development, 6(1), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/vjbsd-2017-0005
57. Sehnem, S., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A. B., Conceição, D. A. da, Weber, D., & Julkovski, D. J. (2021). The role of ecological modernization principles in advancing circular economy practices: lessons from the brewery sector. Benchmarking, 28(9), 2786–2807. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2020-0364
58. Stiti, K., & Ben Rajeb, S. (2022). 2Ws + 1H Systematic Review to (Re)Draw Actors and Challenges of Participation(s): Focus on Cultural Heritage. In Architecture (Vol. 2, Issue 2, pp. 307–333). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture2020018
59. Ting, L. S., Zailani, S., Sidek, N. Z. M., & Shaharudin, M. R. (2023). Motivators and barriers of circular economy business model adoption and its impact on sustainable production in Malaysia. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(7), 17551–17578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03350-6
60. Tran, Q. P., Nguyen, T. K., & Dong, M. C. (2023). Understanding Factors of Households’ Circular Economy Adoption to Facilitate Sustainable Development in an Emerging Country. Research on World Agricultural Economy, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v4i4.911
61. van Dinter, R., Tekinerdogan, B., & Catal, C. (2021). Automation of systematic literature reviews: A systematic literature review. In Information and Software Technology (Vol. 136). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106589
62. Xie, Z., Tian, G., & Tao, Y. (2022). A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework for Sustainable Supplier Selection in the Circular Economy and Industry 4.0 Era. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416809
63. Мельник, О., & Злотнік, М. (2023). Key Trends in Strategic Management in Terms of Circular Economy. Економіка Та Суспільство, 56. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0072/2023-56-42