INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1315
www.rsisinternational.org
From Linear to Circular: The Triadic Framework of Reduction,
Restoration, and Regeneration as Catalysts in Sustainable Supply Chain
Transitions
Mohammad Ammalluddin Ramli
Faculty of Technical and Vocational Education, University Tun Hussein Onn, 86400, Johor,
Malaysia
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.915EC00750
Received: 10 October 2025; Accepted: 15 October 2025; Published: 08 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Overview: This investigation explores the influence of environmentally focused supply chain management on
the performance of the circular economy. In addition, it examines how three specific sustainable practices—
namely reduction, restoration, and regeneration—serve as intermediaries in this relationship. Methodology: This
study focused on Malaysia's manufacturing industry, gathering data from 267 companies through a
straightforward random sampling approach. The study’s framework was rigorously tested for validity and
reliability, and hypothesis testing was performed using Hayes’s PROCESS macro within IBM SPSS. Key
Findings: The results indicate that sustainable supply chain management exerts a direct, positive impact on
circular economy performance. Furthermore, it fosters the adoption of the three sustainable practices, each of
which contributes to enhanced CE performance. These practices also mediate the relationship between supply
chain management and the circular economy, highlighting their critical role. Conclusion: This study illuminate
how sustainable practices bridge the gap between sustainable supply chain management and circular economy
outcomes. In summary, this research deepens the insight into how sustainable supply chain management fosters
eco-friendly practices and strengthens circular economy outcomes, revealing innovative perspectives on the real-
world impact of these vital environmental strategies.
Keywords: Sustainable supply chain management, sustainable reduction, sustainable restoration, sustainable
regeneration, circular economy performance, manufacturing sectors, Malaysia.
INTRODUCTION
As environmental concerns and resource limitations intensify, businesses worldwide find themselves at a pivotal
juncture. Governments, advocacy groups, and stakeholders are exerting increasing pressure on corporations to
rethink their operational strategies, ensuring compliance with environmental standards while mitigating the
ecological impact of industrial processes (Latip et al, 2022; Singh et al, 2021; Zhang et al, 2020). This has
sparked growing interest among manufacturing firms in embracing circular economy (CE) principles to enhance
sustainability. The CE concept, initially recognized by Chinese enterprises, challenges the traditional linear
economy by promoting a regenerative approach. Rooted in the "cradle-to-cradle" philosophy, CE aims to
optimize resource efficiency through material recovery processes such as reduction, reuse, redistribution,
remanufacturing, refurbishment, and recycling (Zhang X et al, 2023; Peralta et al, 2021; Lin et al, 2019) Shifting
from a traditional linear economy to a circular one requires a comprehensive overhaul of supply chain structures.
Consequently, sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) becomes an essential catalyst in boosting circular
economy outcomes. Research suggests that SSCM is not only essential but also one of the key facilitators of a
successful CE transformation (Luthra et al, 2022; Le et al, 2022). However, achieving and maintaining CE
performance requires companies to adopt innovative production techniques, operational frameworks, and
managerial strategies. Sustainable practices, therefore, act as critical enablers of CE by fostering the development
of novel products, processes, and technologies.
Although research on the circular economy has expanded recently, the concept remains nascent and calls for
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1316
www.rsisinternational.org
deeper exploration from multiple angles—especially within the realm of supply chain management (de Lima et
al, 2022; Hina et al, 2023; Kanda et al, 2025). In parallel, investigations into achieving and measuring CE
performance are still emerging, with a particular need for studies in developing economies and emerging markets
(Ghisellini et al, 2016.; Ella et al, 2017). Notably, the connection between sustainable supply chain management
(SSCM) and CE performance has received limited attention. Furthermore, as far as we know, no previous study
has assessed how sustainable practices—specifically reduction, restoration, and regeneration—mediate the
relationship between SSCM and CE performance. To address these gaps, this study seeks to deepen existing
knowledge by examining not only the direct impact of SSCM on CE performance but also its indirect effects
mediated by triadic key dimensions of sustainable practices.
From this standpoint, we put forward the following research questions:
RQ1. How does SSCM affect CE performance?
RQ2. In what ways do sustainable practices mediate the relationship between SSCM and CE performance?
This investigation examine the complex interplay between sustainable supply chain management and circular
economy outcomes, acknowledging that our current work lays the groundwork for future research. As circular
economy studies are still in their infancy, our results serve as an early step toward comprehending the factors
that drive CE performance. Notably, our research was carried out in a modestly sized developing nation, where
most manufacturing firms are small- to medium-sized enterprises. In Malaysia, manufacturing SMEs are just
beginning to embrace and understand CE principles, and many managers have yet to clearly differentiate
between these principles and the metrics used to gauge CE success (Kumar et al, 2024; Afif et al, 2021) Given
the limited availability of companies within a single industry, our sample encompasses multiple sectors,
capturing diverse perspectives on the awareness and implementation of circular economy practices. These
industry-specific variations prompted us to use broad, general CE performance indicators that participants could
readily comprehend and assess. Additionally, we highlight the need for future research to refine these metrics
further, ensuring a clearer distinction between CE performance indicators and the core principles of the circular
economy.
The structure of this paper is as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of the relevant literature. Section 3
presents the theoretical framework and the formulation of our hypotheses. Section 4 describes the research
methodology employed. Section 5 details the results and hypothesis testing, and Section 6 concludes with a
discussion of the findings, their implications, and final conclusions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) has evolved into a pivotal area of research and practice, gaining
global prominence over the last two decades. (Ghadimi et al, 2019; Hariharasudan et al, 2021; Tsai et al, 2021).
Driven by external pressures—including regulatory mandates, competitive market forces, and heightened
stakeholder expectations—sustainability has transcended isolated corporate initiatives to become a cornerstone
of strategic supply chain processes. According to Latip et al, (2022) SSCM necessitates a harmonized focus on
profitability, ecological preservation, and societal equity. It conceptualize the intentional, strategic integration
of an organization’s social, environmental, and economic goals into cross-functional supply chain processes,
fostering sustained value creation for both the firm and its network. Moreover, aligning environmental and
social imperatives with customer needs and economic benchmarks is vital for achieving supply chain resilience
and accountability (Brockhaus et al, 2016; Asamoah et al, 2020).
Organizations increasingly adopting strategies such as green procurement, low-impact warehousing, and
biodegradable packaging (Tabesh et al., 2024; Ali et al., 2023; Gupta et al., 2022; Bawna et al., 2024). Empirical
studies demonstrate that SSCM practices not only reduce waste but also strengthen brand equity, elevate
workforce morale, streamline operations, and drive profitability (Kumar et al., 2025; Al-Tarawneha et al., 2025).
However, deploying SSCM requires navigating multifaceted challenges, including rapidly evolving stakeholder
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1317
www.rsisinternational.org
demands and systemic interdependencies across internal and external networks (Borissov, 2024; Brandao &
Godinho, 2024). To unravel these complexities, this study adopts a circular economy lens, offering a theoretical
foundation to synthesize insights and guide implementation.
Recent advancements in SSCM have incorporated novel paradigms such as circular economy (CE) principles
and Industry 4.0 innovations (Matarneh et al., 2024; Godinho et al., 2024). CE reimagines production-
consumption systems by prioritizing the 3Rs—recycling, reuse, and remanufacturing—to create closed-loop
supply chains (Zorpas, 2024; Rashid & Malik, 2023). Such systems optimize resource cycles (e.g., energy,
materials), enabling firms to achieve holistic sustainability outcomes that align economic growth with ecological
preservation and social equity.
CE concept has garnered significant attention from both practitioners and academics, evolving as a critical
response to unsustainable economic practices. Practitioners frame CE as a transformative alternative to the linear
‘take-make-dispose’ model, guided by three foundational principles: eliminating waste and pollution through
intentional design, extending the lifecycle of products and materials, and restoring natural ecosystems (Zorpas,
2024). This shift addresses the shortcomings of the dominant linear system, which strains the planet’s finite
resources and undermines long-term economic sustainability. By prioritizing closed-loop systems—where
resources are continually reused and renewables replace finite inputs—CE positions itself as a viable pathway
for sustainable production and consumption. Beyond environmental gains like waste reduction, transitioning to
CE unlocks socioeconomic advantages, including resource efficiency, cost savings, and employment
opportunities in emerging green sectors (Eyo-Udo et al.,2024; Karim et al., 2024). In this research, SSCM is
framed within a triadic model, incorporating sustainable reduction, sustainable restoration, and sustainable
regeneration as identified in previous studies.
Sustainable reduction in supply chain management
Modern production systems demand a shift beyond merely optimizing conventional resources like labor,
materials, and machinery for output and profit. Today’s industrial landscape prioritizes a holistic approach that
scrutinizes every form of waste generated—whether excess materials, energy inefficiencies, or time delays—
and actively seeks strategies to prevent, minimize, repurpose, or recover it (Aiguobarueghian et al., 2024; Wei
et al., 2024). Though compliance with environmental laws drives such measures, forward-thinking businesses
recognize that innovative waste management not only aligns with regulations but also unlocks cost savings,
resource conservation, and ecological stewardship. By integrating waste reduction into their operational DNA,
companies transform sustainability into a strategic lever, securing market resilience, operational excellence, and
enduring financial success.
Historically, waste management relied on retroactive fixes like end-of-pipe solutions, later evolving into process-
and product-integrated environmental innovations. While these approaches addressed waste after its creation,
they often operated in silos, targeting symptom reduction within individual companies rather than systemic
change (Cairns et a., 2021; Hofstetter et al., 2021) . Despite their intent, such fragmented efforts struggled to
curb waste’s broader impacts. Now, industries face a paradigm shift: moving away from linear ‘take-make-
dispose’ models—which churn out vast, unsustainable waste—toward circular systems. In this regenerative
framework, discarded products, byproducts, and materials are systematically reclaimed, processed, and
reintegrated into production cycles. This shift not only boosts resource efficiency but also turns waste streams
into revenue streams, aligning profitability with environmental stewardship (Kandpal et al., 2024).
True CE cannot thrive in isolation—no single company possesses the scope or resources to orchestrate a self-
sustaining closed-loop system alone. The real power lies in collaborative ecosystems: interconnected supply
chains where industries unite to transform waste into wealth. By leveraging supply chain strategies, businesses
can bridge gaps between production stages, turning linear ‘end-of-life’ waste streams into cross-industry inputs.
When companies synchronize efforts—sharing byproducts, repurposing materials, and co-designing resource-
efficient processes—they unlock dual gains: economic resilience and reduced environmental footprints
(Dennisson et al., 2024). To catalyze this shift, industries must reimagine waste not as a liability but as a latent
asset, embedding it into restorative regenerative networks where one company’s discard becomes another’s raw
material. Such symbiotic systems don’t just close loops—they redefine value creation, proving sustainability
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1318
www.rsisinternational.org
and profitability are inseparable partners in tomorrow’s economy.
Sustainable restoration in supply chain management
Within circular economy (CE) scholarship, restoration is predominantly framed as the imperative to replenish
natural capital—a concept rooted in revitalizing ecosystems and preserving finite environmental assets (Bada-
Carbajal et al., 2024; Bertolami, 2024). The concept of natural capital, popularized by Hawken et al. (1999),
encompasses both the tangible resources humanity extracts and the broader ecosystems that sustain life (Polasky
& Daily, 2021).This paradigm positions nature not as a commodity to exploit but as a finite reserve requiring
stewardship (Hails & Ormerod, 2013 ). Consequently, CE advocates argue that economic systems must transition
from extractive models to regenerative ones, where restoration manifests through the active reconstruction of
degraded ecosystems and resource bases.
While sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) and the circular economy (CE) have historically been
examined as distinct scholarly domains, recent research underscores the value of exploring their intersections to
identify mutually reinforcing opportunities (Rada, 2023). SSCM traditionally prioritizes mitigating
environmental harm across supply chain activities, such as reducing pollution and resource depletion (Ali et al.,
2024). In contrast, CE advocates for a paradigmatic shift toward restorative, self-renewing systems that actively
regenerate natural ecosystems while minimizing resource extraction, waste generation, and energy losses
through strategies like closed-loop material flows (Ali et al., 2024; Titova & Terentyeva, 2023).
Although SSCM has incorporated certain CE-aligned practices—such as recovery processes and the "3R"
(reduce, recycle, reuse) framework (Hazen et al., 2021)—their foundational philosophies diverge. CE operates
as an aspirational model, envisioning perpetual resource circulation within closed systems to eliminate reliance
on raw inputs (Baker, 2024). While achieving full circularity remains challenging, CE principles offer a robust
framework for reconciling economic development with ecological preservation. SSCM conversely, often adopts
CE strategies reactively and selectively. For example, SSCM’s "3R" approach focuses on curbing environmental
impacts through waste mitigation, whereas CE’s restorative ethos emphasizes proactive measures, such as
replacing harmful materials with bio-based alternatives to remediate ecological damage (Chen et al., 2024)
Sustainable regeneration in supply chain management
Regeneration transcends the ethos of restoration: where the latter seeks to return systems to a prior state of health,
the former aspires to enhance them beyond their original condition. This distinction, however, is often obscured
by historical and conceptual ambiguities. During the 1990s, proponents of regeneration framed their arguments
through a lens of techno-optimism, aligning it with broader narratives of societal progress (Kirby & Mahoney,
2017). Yet, as Mang and Reed (2012, proposed, the term became entangled with—and often conflated with—
other sustainability paradigms emerging at the time, diluting its unique intent. The resulting proliferation of
interpretations has rendered “regeneration” a fragmented concept, echoing the chaotic evolution of frameworks
that sought to define it (Mang & Reed, 2012).
Scholars such as Pauliuk (2024), Pitt and Heinemeyer (2015), and Rhodes (2017) frame ecological regeneration
as a process of amplifying ecosystems’ capacity to sustain life, aligning with the principle of “ecosystem health.”
Yet this vision hinges on the nebulous idea of “better conditions,” which lacks clarity without defined historical
baselines or metrics to gauge progress. Rhodes (2017) specifies tangible outcomes like habitat creation, soil
enrichment, water purification, and enhanced biogeochemical cycles (e.g., carbon sequestration), proposing that
scaling smaller regenerative units can build systemic resilience. While parallels exist with restoration—notably
in repairing ecological harm—regeneration adopts a forward-looking stance, aiming to forge symbiotic human-
nature relationships. This proactive ethos aligns with concepts like ecological design which integrates human
systems with natural processes; ecological engineering that focused on bio-based infrastructures (Toner et al.,
2023) and “positive development,” advocating net ecological gains (Birkeland, 2022)
Circular Economy Performance (CEP)
The Circular Economy (CE) model aspires to break the link between economic growth and finite resource
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1319
www.rsisinternational.org
depletion—particularly carbon-intensive energy systems—by systematically eliminating waste streams,
perpetually cycling materials, and revitalizing ecological integrity. This paradigm, as conceptualized by the Ellen
MacArthur Foundation (2015), positions economic activity as a catalyst for societal well-being, prioritizing
systems that generate holistic value over extractive consumption. Operationalizing CE demands radical
innovation across industries. Producers must rethink manufacturing through durable, modular designs and adopt
processes enabling repair, remanufacturing, and material recovery (de Lima et al., 2024). Yet transitioning to
such models confronts entrenched barriers: innovation gaps in recycling technologies, funding constraints for
circular infrastructure, and institutional inertia favoring linear practices (Bonetti & Villa, 2023; Kastelli et al.,
2023).
While supply chain proponents routinely address these challenges—whether through waste reduction or
resource optimization—their efforts often lack the systemic coherence and intentionality required to fully align
with CE’s regenerative ambition. Although a proliferation of circular economy (CE) assessment frameworks has
emerged in recent research, significant discrepancies persist across studies in defining their objectives,
operational boundaries, and implementation methodologies, compounded by divergent approaches to evaluating
performance across micro-, meso-, and macro-level systems (Kuzoma & Dovgal, 2023). This investigation
focuses specifically on organizational-scale CE measurement, prioritizing indicators with robust empirical
validation and scholarly consensus. Key metrics integrated into the analysis encompass strategies for resource
efficiency optimization, emission reduction, material loss mitigation, increased utilization of
renewable/recyclable inputs, and product longevity enhancement – criteria widely recognized in foundational
CE literature (Vranjanac et al., 2022; Elshaer et al., 2024).
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
This research employs the conceptual framework depicted in Figure 1 to analyze how Sustainable Supply Chain
Management (SSCM) influences strategies for minimizing waste (reduction), renewing resources (restoration),
revitalizing systems (regeneration), and enhancing Circular Economy (CE) outcomes. It further examines the
direct contributions of reduction, restoration, and regeneration to CE performance, as well as their role as
mediators in linking SSCM practices to improved CE results
Figure 1. Research model.
SSCM and Circular Economy Performance
Shifting from linear economic models to circular systems requires businesses to fundamentally reconfiguring
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1320
www.rsisinternational.org
their supply networks. Ricardo and Sandoval (2024) highlighted that adopting SSCM optimizes resource use,
safeguards ecosystems, and elevates CE outcomes. Consequently, SSCM is positioned as a strategic approach
to balancing profitability, mitigating ecological harm, and boosting resource efficiency to strengthen CE
performance (Malhotra, 2023). Zhang et al., (2024) reinforced this, arguing that SSCM acts as a catalyst for CE
adoption, while other researchers have explored synergistic links between SSCM and CE frameworks (Galanton,
2024; Patel et al., 2021). SSCM encompasses all stages of a product’s lifecycle—design, sourcing,
manufacturing, distribution, consumption, and recycling—ensuring closed-loop systems that drive CE progress
(Galanton, 2024). To maximize CE outcomes, SSCM implementation must align with core 3R principles (reduce
waste, renewing resource, revitalising system). Empirical studies, such as Li et al. (2023) demonstrated that
sustainable supply chain practices directly enhance CE capabilities in China’s eco-industrial sectors. Bai et al.
(2023) similarly identified SSCM practices as critical precursors for advancing CE initiatives in China.
Conversely, Wang et al. (2024) revealed disparities in CE implementation and performance among firms with
varying levels of SSCM adoption. This leads to the proposed hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The implementation of SSCM directly and positively influence CE performance..
SSCM and sustainable reduction, restoration and regeneration practice
Growing global consumer preference for sustainable goods is prompting manufacturers to overhaul supply chain
operations, not merely to curb toxic byproducts but to revitalize ecological balance in production systems while
securing returns on green investments (Iannuzzi, 2024). Iannuzzi (2024) also highlights that aligning supply
chain strategies with eco-conscious buyer expectations is a pivotal motivator for adopting SSCM. For an
example, gasoline-powered vehicles contribute heavily to atmospheric contamination, driving the rise of electric
cars as a cleaner alternative. This shift underscores the need for eco-design strategies that merge user-centric
performance with planetary well-being. Forward-thinking firms now recognize SSCM as a gateway to untapped
markets rooted in sustainable innovation. Supporting this, studies by Zankl & Grimes (2024) underscore that
cross-supply-chain partnerships amplify corporate commitment to reducing pollutants, spurring collaborative
efforts in waste reduction and eco-efficient practices. Such alliances often catalyze transformative environmental
initiatives led by industry leaders.
Strategic execution of SSCM can also drives measurable advantages, including superior product standards,
minimized operational expenses, punctual distribution, and optimized resource use. Lean manufacturing
frameworks further prioritize employee accountability in refining workflows, fostering productivity gains
through shortened cycle times and systematic waste reduction (Trotta & Fernandez, 2022; Basiru et al., 2023)
Enhanced logistical coordination—spanning procurement to delivery—enables firms to source premium
materials from select partners, mitigate production inefficiencies, and curb defects, thereby elevating output
consistency while slashing avoidable losses (Basiru et al., 2023) Integrating these practices across the supply
network not only safeguards material integrity but also fortifies compliance, positioning businesses to achieve
both economic and operational excellence.
Additionally, regenerative and restorative approaches within SSCM emphasise sustainability beyond traditional
practices (Bag, 2025; Howard et al., 2019) For instance, the meticulous disassembly and assessment of used
devices or materials allows components to be refurbished, remanufactured, or recycled, effectively minimising
waste. This not only reduces environmental harm but also restores ecosystems and resources. These practices
align with industrial ecology principles, focusing on closed-loop systems and enabling natural cycles in industrial
processes. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 2: The implementation of SSCM is expected to enhance the positive influence of sustainable
reduction practice.
Hypothesis 3: The implementation of SSCM is expected to enhance the positive influence of sustainable
restoration practice.
Hypothesis 4: The implementation of SSCM is expected to enhance the positive influence of sustainable
regeneration practice.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1321
www.rsisinternational.org
Sustainable reduction, restoration regeneration practice and CE Performance
Firms worldwide seek to transform their manufacturing processes and consumption
behaviors to minimize
material waste and produce environmentally friendly products and embedding the principles of a circular
economy into traditional supply chain frameworks, fostering resource efficiency and sustainability (Batista et
al., 2019; Ashby et al., 2019). Rooted in minimizing resource depletion, extending material lifespans, and
regenerating value, the circular economy model prioritizes sustainable outcomes by closing resource loops.
Vegter et al. (2021)further emphasize by focusing on the orchestration of interconnected organizations and
consumers to advance economic, ecological, and social goals through restorative systems that emphasize
resource conservation, reuse, and regeneration.
The CE performance prioritizes minimizing resource consumption, sustaining ecosystems, and revitalizing
materials, emphasizing closed-loop systems that mirror natural renewal processes (Roy et al., 2022; Vegter et
al., 2021). Guided by interconnected performance goals, this model outlines a material’s journey: resources are
harvested from the environment, manufactured into goods, utilized across phases of repair and repurposing,
and finally returned via disposal methods like landfills or incineration (Roy et al., 2022). The lifespan of these
cycles—termed service lifetime—spans from a material’s initial extraction to its ultimate reintroduction into
the environment as waste.
Hypothesis 5. The implementation of sustainable reduction practice is expected to enhance the positive
influence on CE performance.
Hypothesis 6. The implementation of sustainable restoration practice is expected to enhance the positive
influence on CE performance.
Hypothesis 7. The implementation of sustainable regeneration practice is expected to enhance the positive
influence on CE performance.
Sustainable reduction, restoration and regeneration practices mediating the effects on the SSCM–CE
Performance Relationship
Existing research suggests SSCM directly strengthens CE outcomes (e.g., resource efficiency, waste mitigation).
However, its indirect effects—mediated through variables like sustainable reduction, restoration, and
regeneration practices—warrant deeper analysis to fully unravel this dynamic . By embedding SSCM
frameworks, firms can institutionalize eco-conscious collaboration with suppliers, refine production processes,
and foster employee engagement in sustainability initiatives, all of which amplify CE performance. For instance,
SSCM operationalizes measures such as energy optimization, material recycling, and pollution control, thereby
curbing resource exploitation and aligning operations with CE principles (Batista et al., 2019).
Critically, SSCM acts as a catalyst: it establishes the infrastructure for reduction-restoration-regeneration cycles
(e.g., reusing materials, repairing products), which subsequently elevate CE metrics. As Del Giudice et al. (2021)
emphasize, advancing CE through SSCM demands cross-functional alignment—training teams, incentivizing
sustainable behaviors, and partnering with external stakeholders to design supply chains that prioritize
circularity. Thus, SSCM’s value lies not only in its immediate environmental gains but also in its capacity to
systemicize circular practices across organizational and industrial boundaries.
Hypothesis 8. The implementation of sustainable reduction practices is expected to enhance the positive
influence of SSCM on CE performance.
Hypothesis 10. The implementation of restoration practice is expected to enhance the positive influence of
SSCM on CE performance.
Hypothesis 11. The implementation of regeneration practice is expected to enhnace the positive influence of
SSCM on CE performance.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1322
www.rsisinternational.org
METHODOLOGY
Sample
The research focused on manufacturing enterprises in Malaysia, encompassing 1,783 registered firms as the
target population. A representative sample of 316 companies was selected for analysis, with individual firms
serving as the primary unit of investigation. To ensure diversity, the study incorporated businesses across
multiple industries, as individual sectors in Jordan host relatively few firms. A random sampling approach was
employed, though this method—common in supply chain studies—posed challenges, including the labor-
intensive process of compiling company databases and logistical efforts to engage participants. To mitigate
low response rates typical of digital or mailed surveys in Malaysia, The research sample was carefully curated
by Embrain, a company renowned for its employee database and rigorous sample selection protocols to ensure
the integrity and quality of the data collected.
At each firm, a single manager with adequate understanding of operational or supply chain dynamics (e.g., SC,
plant, operations, or executive managers) was invited to complete the questionnaire. Data collection spanned
January to March 2024, beginning with coordination through human resource departments. These teams assisted
in identifying qualified respondents, particularly in smaller firms lacking dedicated SC roles, where operations
managers often handled such responsibilities. Participants were assured confidentiality, with data reserved solely
for academic purposes. Of the 316 distributed questionnaires, 267 were returned fully completed, achieving an
87.6% response rate attributed to the direct, in-person distribution strategy. Demographic and organizational
profiles of respondents and firms are detailed in Table 1.
Table 1: Profiles of respondents and surveyed companies.
Category
Frequency
Percentage (100%)
Gender
Male
208
78
Female
59
22
Total
267
100.0
Job Position
Supply chain manager
99
37
Operations manager
82
30
Plant manager
37
13.8
Executive manager
31
11.6
Others
18
6.7
Total
267
100.0
Company age
Less than 5 years
19
7.1
5–less than 10 years
28
10.4
10–less than 15 years
105
39.3
15 years and above
115
43
Total
267
100.0
Respondent’s experience
Less than 5 years
73
27.3
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1323
www.rsisinternational.org
5–less than 10 years
88
33
10–less than 15 years
52
19.4
15–less than 20 years
30
11.2
20 years and above
24
9
Total
267
100.0
Industry Type
Machinery and hardware
43
16.1
Electrical and electronics
40
15
Chemical
39
14.6
Food
39
14.6
Textiles and garments
35
13
Rubber and plastic
23
8.6
Pharmaceutical
15
5.6
Paper and packaging
14
5.2
Others
19
7.1
Total
267
100.0
Questionnaire and Measures
To accomplish the research objectives, a structured survey was designed by synthesizing insights from existing
scholarly works. The framework and measurement items were adapted from well-established, peer-reviewed
studies in English [11,63,70,83–86], chosen for their robust validation and frequent application in prior research.
For example, Chiou et al. [70] documented reliability scores of 0.77 (product innovation), 0.96 (process
innovation), and 0.92 (management innovation), while Zeng et al. [11] reported a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.897 for
circular economy performance. The questionnaire was initially drafted in English and subsequently translated
into Arabic by the research team. To ensure conceptual accuracy and linguistic equivalence, academics
specializing in operations and supply chain management evaluated both language versions, refining the wording
and structure based on their feedback. Further clarity checks were conducted by distributing the survey to seven
industry managers, leading to additional adjustments. Respondents rated their agreement with each statement
using a five-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 5 = “strongly agree”). A comprehensive list of constructs,
their corresponding measurement items, and original sources is provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Measurement items.
Item
Number
Green Procurement Practices (Tabesh et al., 2024)
GPP1
GPP2
GPP3
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1324
www.rsisinternational.org
GPP4
GPP5
Sustainable Production Processes (Ali et al., 2023; Kumar et al., 2025)
SPP1
SPP2
SPP3
SPP4
SPP5
Resource Efficiency and Optimization (Zorpas, 2024)
REO1
REO2*
REO3
REO4
REO5
Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement (Borissov, 2024; Brandao & Godinho, 2024)
CSE1
CSE2
CSE3*
CSE4
CSE5
Sustainable Reduction Practice (Aiguobarueghian et al., 2024; Wei et al., 2024)
SRDP1
SRDP2
SRDP3
SRDP4
SRDP5
Sustainable Restoration Practice (Bada-Carbajal et al., 2024; Bertolami, 2024)
SRTP1
SRTP2
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1325
www.rsisinternational.org
SRTP3
SRTP4
SRTP5
Sustainable Regeneration Practice(Toner et al., 2023;Birkeland,2022)
SRGP1
SRGP2
SRGP3
SRGP4
SRGP5
Circular Economy Performance(de Lima et al., 2024;Vranjanac et al., 2022; Elshaer et al., 2024)
CEP1
CEP2
CEP3
CEP4
CEP5
CEP6
CEP7
CEP8
CEP9
CEP10
Note: *: deleted items.
Data Analysis and Results
Assessment of the Measurement Model
The investigation conducted a thorough examination of the research model and its components by applying strict
validity and reliability tests. Central to this analysis were criteria such as unidimensionality, convergent validity,
and composite reliability . Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using Amos 24.0 was employed to assess both
the unidimensionality and overall adequacy of the model, thereby confirming the integrity of the entire
measurement framework. Eight first-order constructs were scrutinized, with each indicator systematically paired
with its corresponding variable. Those indicators that registered factor loadings below 0.50 were removed—
resulting in the exclusion of two items—while the remaining indicators provided strong evidence of convergent
validity and unidimensionality for these constructs. Additionally, every average variance extracted (AVE) score
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1326
www.rsisinternational.org
exceeded the 0.50 threshold, further reinforcing convergent validity. The model’s fit indices (χ² = 740.865; df =
466; χ²/df = 1.592; CFI = 0.959; IFI = 0.957; TLI = 0.948; RMSEA = 0.057; RMR = 0.043) supported its
acceptable validity, and the composite reliability for all first-order variables surpassed the 0.70 benchmark [89].
For the second-order SSCM construct used in hypothesis testing, additional tests for validity and reliability were
conducted. This model displayed satisfactory fit indices (χ² = 814.577; df = 479; χ²/df = 1.703; CFI = 0.923; IFI
= 0.928; TLI = 0.925; RMSEA = 0.064; RMR = 0.050). All factor loadings for the second-order construct were
above 0.50, and both its AVE (0.675) and CR values exceeded the established thresholds of 0.50 and 0.70,
respectively, thereby confirming convergent validity. A detailed summary of these assessments is presented in
Table 3.
Table 3. Reliability and validity of the constructs.
Construct
Item
number
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Loading CFA
Composite
reliability
GPP
GPP1
4.35
0.756
0.647
0.867
GPP2
0.698
GPP3
0.791
GPP4
0.853
GPP5
0.741
SPP
SPP1
3.77
0.738
0.766
0.822
SPP2
0.625
SPP4
0.786
SPP5
0.737
REO
REO1
3.95
0.864
0.831
0.865
REO2
0.826
REO3
0.746
REO4
0.738
CSE
CSE1
4.14
0.765
0.720
0.844
CSE2
0.787
CSE3
0.808
CSE4
0.644
CSE5
0.637
GSCM
a
CSE
b
4.04
0.640
0.812
0.889
SPP
b
0.941
REO
b
0.866
GPP
b
0.630
SRDP
GPRD1
3.38
0.863
0.843
0.897
GPRD2
0.769
GPRD3
0.754
GPRD4
0.817
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1327
www.rsisinternational.org
Note: a second-order construct; b second-order indicators.
To verify the distinctiveness of the first-order constructs within the research model, discriminant validity was
rigorously examined. This evaluation involved calculating the square root of the average variance extracted
(AVE) for each construct and comparing it against the correlation coefficients between that construct and all
others in the study. As displayed in Table 4, the analysis confirmed that all constructs met this criterion, with
the square roots of their AVE values surpassing their inter-construct correlations. These findings confirm that
the constructs are statistically distinct, thereby establishing robust discriminant validity in the study’s framework.
Table 4. Assessment of discriminant validity.
Construct
AVE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. GPP
0.561
0.748
2. SPP
0.536
0.524
0.732
3. REO
0.620
0.512
0.570
0.787
4. CSE
0.520
0.475
0.547
0.566
0.720
5. SRDP
0.631
0.717
0.466
0.422
0.471
0.793
6. SRTP
0.569
0.569
0.409
0.487
0.437
0.619
0.754
7. SRGP
0.507
0.436
0.481
0.538
0.585
0.672
0.741
0.711
8. CEP
0.524
0.648
0.429
0.476
0.539
0.398
0.424
0.466
0.724
GPRD5
0.795
SRTP
GPRC1
3.77
0.695
0.785
0.838
GPRC2
0.691
GPRC3
0.846
GPRC4
0.674
SRGP
GMGT1
3.96
0.715
0.724
0.806
GMGT2
0.747
GMGT3
0.683
GMGT4
0.698
CEP
CEP1
3.64
0.873
0.717
0.915
CEP2
0.685
CEP3
0.686
CEP4
0.722
CEP5
0.742
CEP6
0.672
CEP7
0.725
CEP8
0.707
CEP9
0.744
CEP10
0.810
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1328
www.rsisinternational.org
Results
The study hypotheses were tested using the PROCESS macro (Model 4) in SPSS to analyze parallel mediation
effects, following Hayes’s recommendations (Hayes, 2012). This approach employed 5000 bootstrapped
samples and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to examine direct, indirect, and total effects. Statistical significance
was determined when CIs excluded zero between their lower (LL) and upper (UL) bounds (Hayes, 2012; Hayes
et al., 2017). The analysis revealed a significant positive direct effect of sustainable supply chain management
(SSCM) on circular economy (CE) performance (β = 0.421, p = 0.01), supporting Hypothesis 1. SSCM also
demonstrated strong positive associations with sustainable reduction, restoration, and regeneration practices,
significantly influencing SRDP (β = 0.405, p = 0.01), SRTP (β = 0.678, p = 0.01), and SRGP (β = 0.695, p =
0.01), thereby validating Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4.
Furthermore, each sustainable practice independently contributed to CE performance: SRDP (β = 0.245, p =
0.01), SRTP (β = 0.172, p = 0.01), and SRGP (β = 0.188, p = 0.01), confirming Hypotheses 5–7. Mediation
analysis indicated that SRDP (β = 0.098, 95% CI [0.055, 0.151]), SRTP (β = 0.115, 95% CI [0.022, 0.214]), and
SRGP (β = 0.130, 95% CI [0.041, 0.223]) each partially mediated the relationship between SSCM and CE
performance, supporting Hypotheses 8–10. The persistence of a significant direct SSCM–CE effect (β =
0.421, p = 0.01) alongside these indirect pathways confirmed partial mediation [93]. The total impact of SSCM
on CE performance, calculated as the sum of direct and indirect effects (0.421 + 0.098 + 0.115 + 0.130), yielded
a combined effect size of 0.764. A detailed summary of these findings is presented in Table 5
Table 5. Summary of results.
Hypothesis
Path
Mediated
Model
95% Confidence
Interval
Result
Lower
Upper
H1
SSCM → CEP
0.421 **
0.293
0.487
Supported
H2
SSCM → SRDP
0.405 **
0.259
0.469
Supported
H3
SSCM → SRTP
0.678 **
0.524
0.693
Supported
H4
SSCM → SRGP
0.695 **
0.615
0.803
Supported
H5
SRDP → CEP
0.244 **
0.172
0.330
Supported
H6
SRTP → CEP
0.172 **
0.063
0.291
Supported
H7
SRGP → CEP
0.188**
0.071
0.275
Supported
H8
SSCM → SRDP → CEP
0.098 (indirect
effect)
0.055
0.151
Supported
H9
SSCM → SRTP → CEP
0.115 (indirect
effect)
0.022
0.214
Supported
H10
SSCM → SRGP → CEP
0.130 (indirect
effect)
0.041
0.223
Supported
Note: ** p < 0.01.
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Discussion
The study demonstrated that sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) serves as a significant driver of
circular economy (CE) outcomes, with empirical data reinforcing its direct, positive influence. While these
findings align with broader literature, nuanced distinctions emerged. For example, prior work by Zeng et al.
(2017) linked supply chain relationship management (SCRM) and sustainable supply chain design (SSCD) to
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1329
www.rsisinternational.org
enhanced CE capabilities in China’s eco-industrial parks, whereas this research shifts focus to SSCM’s role in a
developing nation’s industrial landscape. Similarly, while Kazancoglu et al. (2021) proposed a theoretical model
for SSCM-CE integration, this analysis advances the discourse by grounding the relationship in tangible
evidence. Critically, the results challenge the assumption that internal sustainability initiatives alone suffice for
achieving robust CE performance. Instead, they underscore the necessity of external collaboration: partnering
with suppliers to source low-impact materials and engaging customers in product return systems, recycling
programs, and reuse protocols. Such coordinated efforts create closed-loop synergies, enabling manufacturers to
align with core CE principles—reduction, reuse, and recycling. By prioritizing SSCM, firms optimize resource
efficiency, curb energy consumption, and mitigate pollution, thereby elevating both environmental outcomes
and operational circularity.
The findings of this study confirm that SSCM has a positive influence on all three aspects of 3R’s sustainable
practices: reduction, restoration, and regeneration. These results align with previous research (Tseng et al., 2019;
Abu Seman et al., 2022). However, unlike earlier studies that primarily examined SSCM’s impact on green
practices as a whole, our research takes a more granular approach by analyzing its effect on each specific 3R’s
sustainable practices individually. Several distinctions set our study apart from previous work. For instance,
Tseng et al. (2019) conducted a literature review, whereas our research provides empirical evidence of this
relationship. Similarly, Abu Seman et al. (2022) explored the influence of SSCM on green practices as a unified
concept in Malaysia, while our study breaks it down further, considering its impact across different functional
areas—procurement, production, resource management, and stakeholder engagement—on 3R’s practices.
Additionally, Chiou et al. (2011) found that sustainable supplier practices positively affected product, process,
and managerial innovations in Taiwan. In contrast, our study specifically examines how SSCM influences three
distinct sustainable practices. Notably, our results indicate that SSCM’s influence on restoration and regeneration
practices is more pronounced than on reduction practices. This discrepancy may stem from the fact that SRDP
primarily focuses on minimizing production waste, often requiring advanced technologies and substantial
financial investment. Conversely, SRTP and SRGP emphasize process enhancements and investment returns
through operational efficiency, sourcing strategies, and logistics improvements that lower resource consumption
and emissions. As a result, SRDP tends to be more costly, while SRTP and SRGP provide companies with more
opportunities for cost reduction, environmental sustainability, and an enhanced green reputation.
Our study confirms that 3R’s sustainable practices have a strong and positive impact on CE performance. While
these findings generally align with prior research [13,14,76], some key differences emerge. For instance, de
Jesus et al. (2021) conducted a literature-based analysis, whereas our study provides empirical evidence on CE
performance outcomes. Similarly, Maldonado-Guzmán et al. (2021) identified a positive relationship between
sustainable practices and CE performance within Mexico’s automotive and auto parts sector, but our research
differs by focusing on SMEs in a developing economy rather than large corporations. Additionally, Bag et al.
(2020) examined the influence of a broad green practice framework on CE capability in South Africa. In contrast,
our study takes a more detailed approach, assessing how specific sustainable practices contribute to CE
performance. The results indicate that SRDP, SRGP, and SRTP were the most impactful 3R’s practices, in that
order. Interestingly, while SRDP was the least influenced by SSCM, it played the most significant role in
enhancing CE performance. This may be due to the high costs, technical complexity, and advanced expertise
required for SRDP innovation. However, once companies successfully implement SRDP, its benefits for CE
performance appear to be the most substantial.
Ultimately, the different types of 3R’s practices played a significant mediating role in the relationship between
SSCM and CE performance. These findings highlight that implementing 3R’s practices can be an effective
approach for improving CE performance in manufacturing firms. Our study underscores SSCM as a key driver
of both sustainable practices and CE performance. By fostering sustainability initiatives, SSCM is likely to
amplify CE performance through the adoption of reduction, restoration, and regeneration strategies. Although
these environmental concepts are still emerging in Malaysia, their presence may indicate growing environmental
awareness among manufacturing firms. Companies that strategically align their SSCM initiatives with
sustainable practices are expected to achieve superior CE performance. To our knowledge, this study is the first
to provide empirical evidence on how reduction, restoration, and regeneration practices mediate the SSCM–CE
performance link. However, our findings partially align with Abu Seman et al. (2022), who identified the
mediating role of green practices—considered as a broad construct—between SSCM and environmental
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1330
www.rsisinternational.org
performance in Malaysia.
Conclusions
This research explored how SSCM influences the adoption of sustainable practices (Reduction, Restoration, and
Regeneration) and CE performance within Malaysia's manufacturing sector. It also examined the direct link
between 3R’s practices and CE performance, along with the indirect role of SSCM in enhancing CE performance
through 3R’s implementation. The findings revealed that SSCM plays a crucial role in driving sustainability-
focused innovations in products, processes, and management. Additionally, the study demonstrated that SSCM
significantly contributes to improved CE performance. Moreover, the research emphasized the essential role of
3R practices in strengthening CE performance outcomes. The results further indicated that reduction, restoration,
and regeneration practices positively mediate the relationship between SSCM and CE performance. Ultimately,
this study enhances the understanding of SSCM’s influence on sustainable practices and CE performance,
offering fresh perspectives on the practical implications of these key environmental strategies.
Theoretical Contribution
This study makes several theoretical contributions. Firstly, it enriches existing research by presenting empirical
evidence on how SSCM influences both sustainable practices and CE performance. Furthermore, it builds on
previous studies by analyzing the effect of 3R practices on CE performance and investigating their mediating
role in the SSCM–CE performance link. Secondly, this research is among the first to explore how SSCM affects
three distinct categories of sustainable practices. Additionally, it highlights the broader role of sustainability
efforts by emphasizing not just waste reduction but also restoration and regeneration practice as key components
of sustainable resource management in manufacturing industry. By adopting a circular economy perspective,
this study deepens the understanding of the interconnectedness between various sustainable practices within the
manufacturing sector.
Managerial Implications
This research provides valuable insights and recommendations for leaders in the manufacturing sector. It
underscores the vital role of Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) in driving sustainable practices and
fostering innovation, ultimately enhancing Circular Economy (CE) performance. By integrating SSCM
strategies with 3R sustainable practices initiatives, managers can not only meet environmental regulations but
also achieve higher levels of CE efficiency. While many manufacturers primarily focus on minimizing waste,
this study highlights the broader necessity of restoring ecological balance while simultaneously generating
economic benefits. SSCM’s impact extends beyond CE performance, as prior research suggests it plays a pivotal
role in advancing sustainable production methods and process innovations. Though implementing these
environmental strategies may seem financially and logistically challenging, especially in developing economies,
they are essential for long-term business viability and regulatory compliance at both local and global levels.
Moreover, adhering to stringent environmental standards enables manufacturers to access international markets
with strict import regulations. Despite the upfront investment, the long-term gains—such as business
sustainability, enhanced brand reputation, and increased export potential—justify the costs associated with these
green initiatives.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
This investigation acknowledges several limitations that open avenues for future exploration. To begin with,
while it evaluated the collective influence of Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) on sustainable
practices and Circular Economy (CE) outcomes, it did not dissect the effects of specific SSCM initiatives. Future
research could benefit from analyzing these individual components to offer more nuanced insights. Moreover,
the study's sample spanned multiple industries due to the limited representation within any single sector in
Malaysia, yet the degree to which environmental strategies are executed can vary widely based on industry-
specific factors such as technological sophistication, supply chain configurations, product features, and
ecological impacts. Conducting research within a single industry might therefore provide more detailed
understanding of these relationships. Additionally, the reliance on a single managerial viewpoint from each
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1331
www.rsisinternational.org
company, although common in research, may constrain the broader applicability of the findings; incorporating
feedback from multiple informants could enhance the robustness of future conclusions. Finally, because the
current assessment of CE performance captured only early-stage implementation efforts rather than long-term,
comprehensive outcomes, future studies should refine these indicators. It would also be worthwhile to examine
the reverse influence—exploring how mature CE practices might, in turn, drive sustainable innovations and
shape SSCM.
Declarations
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Data Availability Statement
Not Applicable
Authors’s Contributions
The authors confirm their contribution to the paper as follows: Study conception and design:Mohammad
Ammalluddin Ramli; Data collection: Mohammad Ammalluddin Ramli; Analysis and interpretation of results:
Mohammad Ammalluddin Ramli; Draft manuscript preparation; Mohammad; Ammalluddin Ramli.
Ethics Approval
Not Applicable
Consent to Participate
Not Applicable
Consent for Publication
Not Applicable
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank to Dr. Hajar Binti Zakariah and Assoc. Prof. Ts. Dr. Fazlinda Binti Abd Halim for their
support in making the development of this research and drafting of this manuscript successful
REFERENCES
1. Aiguobarueghian, I., Adanma, U. M., Ogunbiyi, E. O., & Solomon, N. O. (2024). An overview of
initiatives and best practices in resource management and sustainability. World Journal of Advanced
Research and Reviews, 22(2), 1734-1745.
2. Al-Tarawneha, A., Haddada, E., Mo'd Al-Dwairi, sR., Yahya Al-Freijat, S., Mansour, A., & Abdulaziz
Al-Obaidly, G. (2024). The impact of strategic and innovativeness entrepreneurship and social capital
on business overall performance through building a sustainable supply chain management at Jordan
Private Universities.
3. Ali, S. S., Kaur, R., & Khan, S. (2023). Evaluating sustainability initiatives in warehouse for measuring
sustainability performance: an emerging economy perspective. Annals of Operations Research, 324(1),
461-500.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1332
www.rsisinternational.org
4. Ali, B. M., Majeed, M. A., Latif, N., & Aldrickzler, R. (2024). Sustainable supply chain management
practices for environmental and social integrity. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(5), 1000-1016.
5. Asamoah, D., Agyei-Owusu, B., & Ashun, E. (2020). Social network relationship, supply chain
resilience and customer-oriented performance of small and medium enterprises in a developing
economy. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(5), 1793-1813.
6. Atif, S., Ahmed, S., Wasim, M., Zeb, B., Pervez, Z., & Quinn, L. (2021). Towards a conceptual
development of Industry 4.0, servitisation, and circular economy: A systematic literature
review. Sustainability, 13(11), 6501.
7. Bada-Carbajal, L. M., Escobedo-Guerrero, G. G., de los Ángeles Hernández-García, M., Jiménez-
Avalos, H. A., & Rivas-Aguilar, O. E. (2024). Circular Economy as an Environmental Strategy Post
COVID-19 in a Bus Manufacturing Industry in the State of Mexico. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management.
8. Bag, S. (2025). Restorative supply chain practices in a circular economy and supply chain sustainability
performance: the moderating effect of the perceived professional status of supply chain
managers. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 32(1), 166-193.
9. Bag, S., Wood, L. C., Mangla, S. K., & Luthra, S. (2020). Procurement 4.0 and its implications on
business process performance in a circular economy. Resources, conservation and recycling, 152,
104502.
10. Bai, C., Sarkis, J., Yin, F., & Dou, Y. (2020). Sustainable supply chain flexibility and its relationship
to circular economy-target performance. International Journal of Production Research, 58(19), 5893-
5910.
11. Basiru, J. O., Ejiofor, L. C., Onukwulu, C. E., & Attah, R. U. (2023). Adopting lean management
principles in procurement: A conceptual model for improving cost-efficiency and process flow. Iconic
Research and Engineering Journals, 6(12), 1503-1522.
12. Batista, L., Bourlakis, M., Smart, P., & Maull, R. (2019). Business models in the circular economy and
the enabling role of circular supply chains. Operations Management and Sustainability: New Research
Perspectives, 105-134.
13. Bertolami, O. (2024). Natural capital as a stock option. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14041.
14. Bhawna, Kang, P. S., & Sharma, S. K. (2024). Bridging the gap: a systematic analysis of circular
economy, supply chain management, and digitization for sustainability and resilience. Operations
Management Research, 17(3), 1039-1057.
15. Birkeland, J. (2022). Nature positive: Interrogating sustainable design frameworks for their potential to
deliver eco-positive outcomes. Urban Science, 6(2), 35.
16. Bonetti, M., & Villa, M. (2023). The conflicts of ecological transition on the ground and the role of
eco-social policies: Lessons from Italian case studies. European Journal of Social Security, 25(4), 464-
483.
17. Borissov, D. (2024). Enterprises as Complex Systems: Navigating Challenges and Embracing
Resilience. Business Ethics and Leadership, 8(4), 95-122.
18. Brandao, M. S., & Godinho Filho, M. (2024). Changing terms, evolving strategies: the tailoring of
supply chain management terms and its implications. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 29(4), 778-793.
19. Brockhaus, S., Fawcett, S., Kersten, W., & Knemeyer, M. (2016). A framework for benchmarking
product sustainability efforts: Using systems dynamics to achieve supply chain
alignment. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23(1), 127-164.
20. Cairns, S., Patel, S. C., Jessop, A., & Mullen, M. (2021). A Circular Agriculture and Agri-Food
Economy for Canada: A Report of The Clean Growth in Agriculture and Agri-Food Project. Smart
Prosperity Institute.
21. Chen, Y., Yin, X., & Lyu, C. (2024). Circular design strategies and economic sustainability of
construction projects in china: the mediating role of organizational culture. Scientific Reports, 14(1),
7890.
22. Chiou, T. Y., Chan, H. K., Lettice, F., & Chung, S. H. (2011). The influence of greening the suppliers
and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage in
Taiwan. Transportation research part E: logistics and transportation review, 47(6), 822-836.
23. de Jesus, A., Lammi, M., Domenech, T., Vanhuyse, F., & Mendonça, S. (2021). Eco-innovation
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1333
www.rsisinternational.org
diversity in a circular economy: Towards circular innovation studies. Sustainability, 13(19), 10974.
24. de Lima, F. A., Seuring, S., & Sauer, P. C. (2022). A systematic literature review exploring uncertainty
management and sustainability outcomes in circular supply chains. International Journal of Production
Research, 60(19), 6013-6046.
25. de Lima, F. A., Seuring, S., & Genovese, A. (2024). How to enhance circular supply chains? Aligning
R-imperatives, uncertainty management and sustainability. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 44(4), 836-858.
26. Del Giudice, M., Chierici, R., Mazzucchelli, A., & Fiano, F. (2021). Supply chain management in the
era of circular economy: the moderating effect of big data. The International Journal of Logistics
Management, 32(2), 337-356.
27. Dennison, M. S., Kumar, M. B., & Jebabalan, S. K. (2024). Realization of circular economy principles
in manufacturing: obstacles, advancements, and routes to achieve a sustainable industry
transformation. Discover Sustainability, 5(1), 438.
28. Elia, V., Gnoni, M. G., & Tornese, F. (2017). Measuring circular economy strategies through index
methods: A critical analysis. Journal of cleaner production, 142, 2741-2751.
29. Eyo-Udo, N. L., Agho, M. O., Onukwulu, E. C., Sule, A. K., & Azubuike, C. (2024). Advances in
circular economy models for sustainable energy supply chains. Gulf Journal of Advance Business
Research, 2(6), 300-337.
30. Galanton, N. (2024). Lanțul de aprovizionare circular: o schimbare de paradigmă către managementul
durabil al resurselor. Vector European, (01), 70-77.
31. Ghadimi, P., Wang, C., & Lim, M. K. (2019). Sustainable supply chain modeling and analysis: Past
debate, present problems and future challenges. Resources, conservation and recycling, 140, 72-84.
32. Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: the expected transition
to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner production, 114,
11-32.
33. Godinho Filho, M., Monteiro, L., de Oliveira Mota, R., dos Santos Leite Gonella, J., & de Souza
Campos, L. M. (2022). The relationship between circular economy, industry 4.0 and supply chain
performance: a combined ISM/fuzzy MICMAC approach. Sustainability, 14(5), 2772
34. Gupta, P., Toksha, B., & Rahaman, M. (2022). A review on biodegradable packaging films from
vegetative and food waste. The Chemical Record, 22(7), e202100326.
35. Hails, R. S., & Ormerod, S. J. (2013). Ecological science for ecosystem services and the stewardship of
natural capital. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(4), 807-810.
36. Hariharasudan, A., Kot, S., & Sangeetha, J. (2021). The decades of research on scm and its
advancements: Comprehensive framework. Acta logistica, 8(4), 455-477.
37. Hayes, A. F. (2012, February). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable
mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling.
38. Hayes, A. F., Montoya, A. K., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017). The analysis of mechanisms and their
contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal, 25(1),
76-81.
39. Hazen, B. T., Russo, I., Confente, I., & Pellathy, D. (2021). Supply chain management for circular
economy: conceptual framework and research agenda. The International Journal of Logistics
Management, 32(2), 510-537.
40. Hofstetter, J. S., De Marchi, V., Sarkis, J., Govindan, K., Klassen, R., Ometto, A. R., ... & Vazquez-
Brust, D. (2021). From sustainable global value chains to circular economy—different silos, different
perspectives, but many opportunities to build bridges. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1(1), 21-
47.
41. Howard, M., Hopkinson, P., & Miemczyk, J. (2019). The regenerative supply chain: a framework for
developing circular economy indicators. International Journal of Production Research, 57(23), 7300-
7318.
42. Iannuzzi, A. (2024). Greener products: The making and marketing of sustainable brands. CRC press.
43. Kanda, W., Klofsten, M., Bienkowska, D., Audretsch, D. B., & Geissdoerfer, M. (2025). Orchestration
in Mature Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Towards a Circular Economy: A Dynamic Capabilities
Approach. Business Strategy and the Environment.
44. Kandpal, V., Jaswal, A., Santibanez Gonzalez, E. D., & Agarwal, N. (2024). Circular economy
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1334
www.rsisinternational.org
principles: shifting towards sustainable prosperity. In Sustainable energy transition: Circular economy
and sustainable financing for environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices (pp. 125-165).
Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
45. Kastelli, I., Mamica, L., & Lee, K. (2023). New perspectives and issues in industrial policy for
sustainable development: from developmental and entrepreneurial to environmental state. Review of
Evolutionary Political Economy, 4(1), 1-25.
46. Karim, R., Waaje, A., Roshid, M. M., & Yeamin, M. B. (2025). Turning the Waste Into Wealth:
Progressing Toward Global Sustainability Through the Circular Economy in Waste Management.
In Sustainable Waste Management in the Tourism and Hospitality Sectors (pp. 507-552). IGI Global
Scientific Publishing.
47. Kazancoglu, I., Sagnak, M., Kumar Mangla, S., & Kazancoglu, Y. (2021). Circular economy and the
policy: A framework for improving the corporate environmental management in supply
chains. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 590-608.
48. Kumar, B., Kumar, L., Kumar, A., Kumari, R., Tagar, U., & Sassanelli, C. (2024). Green finance in
circular economy: a literature review. Environment, development and sustainability, 26(7), 16419-
16459.
49. Kumar, A. A., Suryadevara, R., Rakesh, K., & Marri, V. S. (2025). Sustainable Supply Chains in the
Zero-Carbon Era. In Zero Carbon Industry, Eco-Innovation and Environmental Sustainability (pp. 87-
103). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
50. Kuzoma, V., & Dovgal, O. (2023). Application of circular economy assessment indicators. Actual
problems of innovative economy and law.
51. Latip, M., Sharkawi, I., Mohamed, Z., & Kasron, N. (2022). The impact of external stakeholders’
pressures on the intention to adopt environmental management practices and the moderating effects of
firm size. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 32(3), 45-66.
52. Le, T. T. (2022). How humane entrepreneurship fosters sustainable supply chain management for a
circular economy moving towards sustainable corporate performance. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 368, 133178.
53. Li, M., Cao, G., Cui, L., Liu, X., & Dai, J. (2023). Examining how government subsidies influence
firms’ circular supply chain management: The role of eco-innovation and top management
team. International Journal of Production Economics, 261, 108893
54. Lin, C. W., Jeng, S. Y., Tseng, M. L., & Tan, R. (2019). A cradle-to-cradle analysis in the toner cartridge
supply chain using fuzzy recycling production approach. Management of Environmental Quality: An
International Journal, 30(2), 329-345.
55. Luthra, S., Sharma, M., Kumar, A., Joshi, S., Collins, E., & Mangla, S. (2022). Overcoming barriers to
cross-sector collaboration in circular supply chain management: a multi-method
approach. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 157, 102582.
56. Malhotra, G. (2023). Impact of circular economy practices on supply chain capability, flexibility and
sustainable supply chain performance. The International Journal of Logistics Management.
57. Mang, P., & Reed, B. (2012). Designing from place: A regenerative framework and
methodology. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 23-38.
58. Matarneh, S., Piprani, A. Z., Ellahi, R. M., Nguyen, D. N., Le, T. M., & Nazir, S. (2024). Industry 4.0
technologies and circular economy synergies: Enhancing corporate sustainability through sustainable
supply chain integration and flexibility. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 35, 103723.
59. Patel, A., Desai, T. N., & Anjana, R. (2021). An examination of research trends and constructs
concerning frameworks for Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM)-Review Paper.
60. Pauliuk, S., Carrer, F., Heeren, N., & Hertwich, E. G. (2024). Scenario analysis of supply‐and demand‐
side solutions for circular economy and climate change mitigation in the global building sector. Journal
of Industrial Ecology, 28(6), 1699-1715.
61. Peralta, M. E., Alcalá, N., & Soltero, V. M. (2021). Weighting with life cycle assessment and cradle to
cradle: A methodology for global sustainability design. Applied Sciences, 11(19), 9042.
62. Pitt, J., & Heinemeyer, C. (2015). Introducing ideas of a circular economy. In Environment, ethics and
cultures: Design and technology education’s contribution to sustainable global futures (pp. 245-260).
Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
63. Polasky, S., & Daily, G. (2021). An introduction to the economics of natural capital. Review of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV October 2025 | Special Issue on Economics
Page 1335
www.rsisinternational.org
Environmental Economics and Policy, 15(1), 87-94.
64. Rada, E. (2023). Origins of the Concept of Circular Economy and its Evolution. In CONNECT.
International Scientific Conference of Environmental and Climate Technologies (pp. 141-141).
65. Rashid, S., & Malik, S. H. (2023). Transition from a Linear to a Circular Economy. In Renewable
Energy in Circular Economy (pp. 1-20). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
66. Rhodes, C. J. (2017). The imperative for regenerative agriculture. Science progress, 100(1), 80-129.
67. Ricardo, S. E. L., & Sandoval, J. A. P. (2024). Implementación de la economía circular en la gestión de
la cadena de suministro: un análisis bibliométrico. Región Científica, 3(2), 14.
68. Roy, P., Choudhury, M., & Sharma, A. (2022). Circular Economy-An Approach to Reduce Burden on
Earth's Resources: Voice of Environment Newsletter 5 (1), 2022. Voice of Environment Newsletter.
69. Seman, N. A. A. (2022). The Impact of Supply Chain Responsiveness on Sustainable Performance: A
field Study of Manufacturing Companies in Malaysia. Research in Management of Technology and
Business, 3(1), 1012-1020.
70. Singh, S. K., Del Giudice, M., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Latan, H., & Sohal, A. S. (2022). Stakeholder
pressure, green innovation, and performance in small and medium‐sized enterprises: The role of green
dynamic capabilities. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), 500-514.
71. Tabesh, A. R., Chowdhury, M. M. H., Quaddus, M. A., Sianaki, O. A., & Khan, E. (2024). The influence
of agility on green purchasing practices: the role of supplier governance and supplier
relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 39(9), 1969-1983.
72. Titova, N. Y., & Terentyeva, T. V. Carbon circular economy as a tool for managing carbon dioxide
emissions of russian oil and gas companies. ТЕРРИТОРИ/НОВЫХ ВОЗМОЖНОСТЕЙ. ВЕСТНИК
ВЛАДИВОСТОКСКОГО ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА, 67.
73. Toner, J., Desha, C., Reis, K., Hes, D., & Hayes, S. (2023). Integrating ecological knowledge into
regenerative design: A rapid practice review. Sustainability, 15(17), 13271.
74. Trotta, V., & Fernandez, J. M. (2022). Lean manufacturing mitigates barriers to improve environmental
performance: mapping current research and establish future research agenda.
75. Tseng, M. L., Islam, M. S., Karia, N., Fauzi, F. A., & Afrin, S. (2019). A literature review on green
supply chain management: Trends and future challenges. Resources, conservation and recycling, 141,
145-162.
76. Vegter, D., van Hillegersberg, J., & Olthaar, M. (2023). Performance measurement system for circular
supply chain management. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 36, 171-183.
77. Vranjanac, Ž., Velimirović, L., & Stanković, M. (2022). Guideline for Constructing Composite
Indicators that measure Circular Economy Performance. Facta Universitatis, Series: Working and
Living Environmental Protection, 001-007.
78. Wang, Z., & Chu, E. (2024). Shifting focus from end-of-pipe treatment to source control: ESG ratings’
impact on corporate green innovation. Journal of Environmental Management, 354, 120409.
79. Wei, Y., Yuan, H., & Li, H. (2024). Exploring the Contribution of Advanced Systems in Smart City
Development for the Regeneration of Urban Industrial Heritage. Buildings, 14(3), 583.
80. Zankl, J., & Grimes, M. (2024). Taming unicorns: Toward a new normal of responsible
entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 49(4), 879-905.
81. Zeng, H., Chen, X., Xiao, X., & Zhou, Z. (2017). Institutional pressures, sustainable supply chain
management, and circular economy capability: Empirical evidence from Chinese eco-industrial park
firms. Journal of cleaner production, 155, 54-65
82. Zhang, H., He, J., Shi, X., Hong, Q., Bao, J., & Xue, S. (2020). Technology characteristics, stakeholder
pressure, social influence, and green innovation: empirical evidence from Chinese express
companies. Sustainability, 12(7), 2891.
83. Zhang, X., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., Xu, X., Xiao, J., & Luh, D. B. (2023). Assessing the feasibility of
practical cradle to cradle in sustainable conceptual product design. Sustainability, 15(8), 6755.
84. Zhang, D., Huang, X., Wen, Y., Trivedi, P., & Joghee, S. (2021). Sustainable circular business model
for transparency and uncertainty reduction in supply chain management. Journal of Theoretical and
Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(4), 959-975.
85. Zorpas, A. A. (2024). The hidden concept and the beauty of multiple “R” in the framework of waste
strategies development reflecting to circular economy principles. Science of the Total
Environment, 952, 175508.