Journal of Cleaner Production 324 (2021) 129125

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Circular economy applications in the construction industry: A global scan of

trends and opportunities
Beatriz C. Guerra a, *, Sheida Shahi b, Aida Mollaei b, Nathalie Skaf c, Olaf Weber d,
Fernanda Leite e, Carl Haas f
a
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 301 E. Dean Keeton St. C1752, Austin, TX, 78712-1094, USA
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada
c
Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada
d
University Research Chair in Sustainable Finance, School of Environment, Enterprise and Development, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo,
Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada
e
John A. Focht Centennial Teaching Fellowship in Civil Engineering, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin,
301 E. Dean Keeton St. C1752, Austin, TX, 78712-1094, USA
f
University Research Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1,
Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling editor: Dr. Govindan Kannan Construction consumes more than 3 billion tons of raw materials globally each year. Adopting circular economy
principles can help reduce waste and save more than $100 billion per year by improving construction produc­
Keywords: tivity. This study’s overarching objective was to investigate the state of adoption of circular economy principles
Circular economy in the construction sector. A multiple case study approach was used, and adoption opportunities were investi­
Construction industry
gated in a global scan of 81 companies implementing circular economy principles in the construction industry. A
Case studies
knowledge framework with 33 attributes was developed to classify the companies, and their initiatives were
Built environment
analyzed in terms of overall focus, lifecycle operations, and business operations. These companies were cate­
gorized into seven identified business types, and their adoption of nine major circular business models was
evaluated. Opportunity gaps and areas for improvement were identified, and steps for accelerating the shift
towards a circular economy in construction were suggested. Furthermore, specific opportunities and prospects
were discussed for implementing a circular economy in the United States, Canada, and the European construction
industries. Notably, this study fills a gap in the literature by providing empirical evidence of the state of adoption
of circular economy principles in the construction sector. Presented findings can help both academics and in­
dustry practitioners understand the current state of adoption of circular economy principles by construction
companies and accelerate steps towards circularity in construction. Furthermore, the present study highlights the
current differences between circular economy in theory and practice.

1. Introduction 2020). In 2017, in the United States (U.S.) alone, 569 million tons of
construction and demolition (C&D) waste was produced (United States
The global population is projected to increase from 7.7 billion to 9.7 Environmental Protection Agency, 2017). By 2025, it is expected that
billion people by 2050 (United Nations, 2019). As a result of the growing 2.2 billion tons of C&D waste will be generated worldwide (Ellen
population, material consumption will also increase. It is estimated that MacArthur Foundation, 2020). Although construction material waste
overall material use will reach around 90 billion tons by 2050, has a high potential for reuse and recycling, it is estimated that only
approximately twice the quantity recorded in 2015 (Schandl et al., around 40% of the C&D waste is currently reused, recycled, or sent to
2016). The construction industry is currently the largest global con­ waste to energy facilities (United States Environmental Protection
sumer of resources and raw materials (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Agency, 2018), and the remaining 60% is diverted to landfills.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.C. Guerra), [email protected] (S. Shahi), [email protected] (A. Mollaei), [email protected] (N. Skaf),
[email protected] (O. Weber), [email protected] (F. Leite), [email protected] (C. Haas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129125
Received 9 April 2021; Received in revised form 11 August 2021; Accepted 19 September 2021
Available online 28 September 2021
0959-6526/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B.C. Guerra et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 324 (2021) 129125

Construction, renovation, and deconstruction are key industry sec­ regarding the gap between CE theory and practice. In terms of practical
tors related to the built environment. An increasing number of initia­ contribution, the culmination of this study helps identify the trends and
tives, government policies, and academic research have been focusing relationships among companies in the construction sector with respect
on the implementation of a Circular Economy (CE) in the built envi­ to the CE notions. Additionally, the study highlights the areas that
ronment. This increasing trend addresses the rising pressures due to require interventions to accelerate the shift towards a more circular
depleting natural resources, increasing waste production, and the rising construction sector. Finally, this research is structured as follows: a
cost of construction materials. For example, a ‘Salvage Assessment’ is literature review is provided in Section 2; the case studies systematic
being increasingly implemented by municipalities, such as Seattle, to review methodology is explained in Section 3; the CE knowledge
enforce the importance of waste mitigation and material reuse (FCRBE framework developed is explained in Section 3.1; descriptive and
Facilitating the Circulation of Reclaimed Building Elements, 2019). exploratory statistical data analyses conducted are provided in Section
Furthermore, the opportunities for implementing a CE in the built 4; a discussion on the results is presented in Section 5, and conclusions
environment and related businesses are primarily recognized by are provided in Section 6.
different organizations. For instance, the World Economic Forum esti­
mates that the adoption of CE principles by the construction sector could 2. Literature review
result in over U.S. $100 billion a year in savings due to improved pro­
ductivity (World Economic Forum, 2016). Investigating the potential to Transitioning towards a CE cannot be achieved solely with product
reduce material use in this sector will significantly impact global raw or processes innovation. Fundamental changes in the underlying value
material consumption and ultimately reduce the pressure on natural creation system (Angelis, 2021), and current linear business models,
resources. which are prevalent in large and small organizations, are required.
Different definitions of CE are available in the literature depending Linder and Williander (2017) define circular business models as one “in
on the model’s founding school of thought (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Nobre which the conceptual logic for value creation is based on utilizing the
and Tavares, 2021; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016). Despite the economic value retained in products after use in the production of new
differences, the CE model is based on better management of resources by offerings” (Linder and Williander, 2017, p. 183). Implementing a cir­
refusing, rethinking, and reducing unnecessary consumption patterns cular business model is how a company or a system can enable the
(Potting et al., 2017) - that is, the model targets zero waste and pollution transition from a linear economy to a CE. According to Salvador et al.
(Nobre and Tavares, 2021). Moreover, the model has the ultimate goal (2021), circular business models introduce key aspects of a CE to the
of retaining materials and resources circulating at their highest value way a society does business, and encourages business to deploy circular
within planetary boundaries, in a way that additional natural resources practices to offer and capture value. Designing for reuse, resilience,
are unnecessary to produce goods, and the discarded materials are not dependence on more renewable energy sources, system thinking ap­
viewed as waste (Cheshire, 2016; Desing et al., 2020; Potting et al., proaches, shared economies, and industrial symbiosis are some of the
2017). In other words, the CE model is an alternative approach to a most popular principles used in circular business models (Ellen Mac­
linear economy; it is focused on changing the traditional pattern of Arthur Foundation, 2013). Notably, such principles have been devel­
“take-make-dispose” and keeping resources in use for more extended oped and implemented in the construction sector, as well as many other
periods by treating waste as useful inputs (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, industries such as manufacturing, electronics, and automotive (Ellen
2020; Korhonen et al., 2017). The common values of a CE are concen­ MacArthur Foundation, 2013; Angelis, 2021; Hobson et al., 2018).
trated in: (1) decoupling economic growth from resource consumption; Circular business models have gained attraction from both academics
(2) resource efficiency; (3) waste management; (4) sharing; (5) reducing and non-academics (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2019; Angelis, 2021), and
greenhouse gas emissions; (6) lifecycle assessments; and (7) closing different categorizations of circular business models exist in literature.
loops (Ness and Xing, 2017). With the increasing cost of natural re­ For instance, the ReSOLVE framework outlines six action areas for cir­
sources, industries will significantly benefit from shifting towards a cular business models. These six action areas are Regenerate, Share,
more circular approach. However, barriers such as insufficient knowl­ Optimize, Loop, Virtualize, and Exchange (Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
edge regarding CE among stakeholders, inadequate funds for imple­ 2015). Pieroni et al. (2019) studied 92 circular economy-oriented
mentation, and uncertainties in the trade-offs, exist in the path towards business model innovations and clarified the value of customers in
circularity (Mahpour, 2018). driving these innovations. Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) identified the main
Given an increased recognition of the need to shift towards a more drivers of circular business model innovations as increasing resource
circular built environment, this study’s overarching objective is to efficiency and longevity and economic growth through a literature re­
provide an up-to-date review of the CE concepts and strategies imple­ view. Lüdeke-Freund et al. (2019) have also categorized the existing
mented by companies in the construction sector. An 81 case study circular business models into six main categories. Salvador et al. (2021)
analysis from companies in different geographic locations was con­ performed a comprehensive literature review on major circular strate­
ducted to investigate the contemporary CE strategies being adopted by gies and identified the ones with most influence for managing circular
the construction industry. Notably, a large portion of the case studies business models. Notably, there are several similarities and overlaps
conducted as part of this research are from companies in the U.S., between the different methods of categorization of circular business
Canada, and Europe, with a limited number of cases from the remaining models. However, based on the available literature, a general categori­
parts of the world. The companies investigated are specifically active in zation that can cover most of the presented circular business models is:
the built environment, including construction and deconstruction ac­ (1) Product as a Service; (2) Circular Supplies; (3) Product Life Exten­
tivities, consulting and research, automation and software, sharing sion; (4) Resource Recovery; (5) Waste as Resource; (6) Sharing Plat­
platforms for construction materials and assets, waste innovation, and forms; (7) Resell; (8) Repair; and (9) Remanufacture. Table 1 provides a
services. Furthermore, the case studies and analysis were conducted definition for each aforementioned circular business model.
over a six-month period using data publicly available in 2020. As such, Regardless of the number of circular business models and strategies
the result is a representative snapshot in the year 2020. Specifically, this available, to date, most companies have not been able to adopt solely
study contributes to the CE body of knowledge by providing a frame­ circular business strategies. That is, they normally have business models
work and methodology that can be replicated to scan the adoption and that are both circular and linear simultaneously, and the distribution
knowledge of CE in different sectors. Moreover, this study fills in a gap in varies for divisions and product lines in the companies (Lewandowski,
the literature by providing robust empirical evidence of the state of 2016). This could be due to multiple reasons such as difficulties in
adoption of CE in construction. Notably, through the framework implementation, lack of required infrastructure, technological in­
developed and methodology applied, theoretical insights are distilled efficiencies, and the high cost of deploying some circular strategies.

2
B.C. Guerra et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 324 (2021) 129125

Table 1
Major circular business models.
Circular Business Definition Reference
Model

Product as a Service In this circular business model the products are reimagined as a service delivery models. The products will be always owned by Bocken et al. (2018)
the producer (manufacturer) and leased to the end-customer. In this approach the products can be managed during their entire Geissdoerfer et al.
lifecycle by the manufacturer. (2020)

Vermunt et al. (2019)

Circular Supplies Circular Supplies consists on supplying fully biodegradable, renewable, or recyclable resource inputs that sustain circular Lüdeke-Freund et al.
production and consumption of a product. Notably, the value proposition in this circular business model consists on the (2019)
substitution of critical and scars materials, as well as fossil materials. Vermunt et al. (2019)

Product Life This circular business models goes on the contrary of the traditional linear model of consumption in which a high number of Lüdeke-Freund et al.
Extension customers buy individual units. This circular business model focuses on offering higher value, longer-term products, and ensuring (2019)
that these products and materials stay longer in the economy. Vermunt et al. (2019)

Resource Recovery Resource Recovery consists in mining lands or extracting discarded materials, and ensuring that they are circulated back into the Geissdoerfer et al.
economic system. (2020)
Nuβholz et al. (2020)

Velenturf and Jopson

(2019)

Vermunt et al. (2019)

Waste as a Resource In this circular business model, the products are designed to intentionally use other byproducts or ensure that these product’s Lüdeke-Freund et al.
byproducts will be absorbed into a new system. (2019)
Mondal et al. (2019)

Ottosen et al. (2020)

Smol et al. (2015)

Sharing Platform This circular business model creates a service within a product, material, or equipment context to maximize the reuse and Fraccascia and Yazan
shareability of these goods. The idea is to have a platform in which multiple stakeholders can use and share the same goods. (2018)
Lacy and Rutqvist
(2015)

Resell This circular business model encourages the resale and/or buyback of products, materials, or equipment. Thus, supporting the Elia et al. (2020)
continuation of the functionality of the aforementioned goods in the economic system and increasing its useable life span. Whalen (2019)

Repair The repair circular business model focuses on designing goods to have an extended life span through repair services. The value Nuβholz (2018)
added with this circular business model is to extend the life span of goods by providing them with repairs. Lüdeke-Freund et al.
(2019)

Remanufacture Remanufacture focuses on creating a closed-loop system in which the products are intended to be taken back and rebuilt with the Lüdeke-Freund et al.
specifications of the original manufactured product. The idea is that these products will be reconditioned and fed back into the (2019)
production system. Nuβholz (2018)

Van Loon et al. (2021)

Notably, the obstacles of implementing circularity in businesses is a regenerative approach to construction processes and systems that im­
topic gaining traction in the literature (Sarja et al., 2021; Çimen, 2021), proves materials use and minimizes environmental impact. These
and different authors classify the barriers of adopting circular business include strategies for extending the use of systems, increasing value in
models differently. For instance, Grafström and Aasma (2021) classify all lifecycle phases, and reducing waste generation (Brown et al., 2019;
them in technological, market-related, institutional, and social, whereas Foster, 2020; López Ruiz et al., 2020; Munaro et al., 2020). Notably,
de Jesus and Mendonça (2018) classify them in technological, economic, transparency in materials information traceability, storage, and
and market-related, Acharya et al. (2018) classify them in collaboration, dissemination among value chain stakeholders are key enablers for
lack of knowledge, policy and finance-related barriers, and Sarja et al. circularity in the built environment; enabling conscious design, and
(2021) grouped the barriers in economic, political, legislative and planning for materials reuse and recycling (Shojaei et al., 2021; Çimen,
technological factors. 2021; Antwi-Afari et al., 2021). Currently, the global economy is only
Construction materials stocked in the built environment, such as 8.6% circular, with most C&D waste being recycled or used as back­
buildings and infrastructure, make up a large part of global material use filling (Wit et al., 2019). The construction industry has the potential for
and embodied carbon (Vidal-Legaz et al., 2018). Buildings and in­ adopting CE principles, and C&D waste reduction is a priority in most
frastructures have a design life ranging from 50 to more than 100 years; global CE policies (Brambilla et al., 2019; López Ruiz et al., 2020). The
yet, with the lack of timely adaptation measures, increased energy and focus of CE in the built environment is on utilizing technological ad­
material consumption, obsolescence and demolition are inevitable vances in design, construction, and planning to address the economic
(Munaro et al., 2020). A CE in the built environment context refers to a and environmental issues of finite resources (Anastasiades et al., 2020;

3
B.C. Guerra et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 324 (2021) 129125

Table 2
Major circular business strategies related to the built environment life cycle.
Circular Strategy Project Lifecycle Definition Reference
Phase

Design for Disassembly Design Designing to facilitate the recovery and reuse of materials and components at the end of life Akanbi et al. (2019)
through disassembly. Benachio et al. (2020)

Akinade et al. (2015)

Guy and Ciarimboli

(2008)

Miflin et al. (2017)

Rasmussen et al.
(2019)

Vanegas et al. (2018)

Design for Modularity Design Designing to enable the possibility of achieving a modular system or product where the elements Akadiri et al. (2012)
and materials are functionally independent. Benachio et al. (2020)

Osmani et al. (2008)

Kamali and Hewage

(2016)

Kyro et al. (2019)

Specify Reusable and Design Designing for making use of secondary materials as well as specifying end-of-life options for the Guy and Ciarimboli
Recyclable Materials used materials (2008)
Miflin et al. (2017)

Akadiri et al. (2012)

Arora et al. (2020)

Rasmussen et al.
(2019)

Design for Remanufacturing Design Designing to support the idea of remanufacturing the system, which indicates closing the Hatcher et al. (2011)
manufacturing loop by taking the elements of the system back to production.
Material Banks Construction Treating in-use stocks, such as buildings, as useful resources and material mines that can support Heinrich and Lang
future material demands. (2019)
Rose and Stegemann
(2018)

BAMB (2017)

Adoption of Efficient Processes Construction Product or process is developed more effectively (e.g., with a decrease in waste generation, less Li et al. (2010)
material consumption, or less processing time). Ma et al. (2015)
Waste as a Resource Construction Using waste or by-products of a system or product to supply the required materials for a new Benachio et al. (2020)
system or product. Mondal et al. (2019)

Ottosen et al. (2020)

Smol et al. (2015)

Resources Data Management End-of-life Keeping track of consumed materials, and managing resource use and waste production. Augiseau and Barles
(2017)
Lanau et al. (2019)

Resources Reverse Logistics End-of-life Moving resources that have turned into waste to new production in order to reduce virgin Chinda and
material use and environmental impact. Ammarapala (2016)
Hosseini et al. (2015)

Munaro et al., 2020), the issue of C&D waste generation (Jaillon and material flows once the end-of-life of this product is inevitably reached
Poon, 2014), and increasing sustainability and resiliency in buildings (Bocken et al., 2016; Nuβholz et al., 2019). Circular strategies are en­
and cities. A CE in the built environment needs to address the afore­ ablers for a transition towards a CE in the built environment. Overall,
mentioned issues while contributing positively to economic growth these strategies focus on reducing the use of materials and components,
(Lieder and Rashid, 2016; López Ruiz et al., 2020). extending their useful life through repair and refurbishment, and closing
Circular strategies aim to prolong the life of components and prod­ these resource loops through recycling (Bocken et al., 2016). Further­
ucts, in the context of this study, buildings and infrastructure, and close more, reduction of C&D waste generation, and minimization or carbon

4
B.C. Guerra et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 324 (2021) 129125

production throughout the building lifecycle are also concerns related to the current level of applicability and implementation of these strategies
the adoption of circular strategies. Through a comprehensive review, among construction industry members is yet to be investigated. That is,
Benachio et al. (2020) found that knowledge of CE in the construction there is a lack of empirical studies in the existing body of knowledge that
industry is substantial. Still, there is a lack of understanding of how provides an overview of the current level of adoption of CE in the con­
stakeholders can implement circular strategies in their operations. Such struction sector. Notably, empirical studies providing an overview of the
finding was corroborated by Antwi-Afari et al. (2021) who identified state of adoption of CE are available for other industries such as
that a lack of a practical CE approach and assessment tools difficult the manufacturing (Liakos et al., 2019; Liu and Bai, 2014), textile and
transition of CE from theory to practice in the construction industry. CE clothing (Saha et al., 2021) and industrial supply chains (Elia et al.,
is, therefore, being implemented in the built environment at a slow pace, 2020; Calzolari et al., 2021). As such, the specific research gap covered
partially due to the complexity of supply chains, priority on short-term in this study is assessing the current level of knowledge and imple­
goals in companies, and lack of end-of-life stage consideration re­ mentation of CE principles in the construction sector. Results from this
quirements (Chang and Hsieh, 2019; Eberhardt et al., 2019). The lack of empirical global scan helps identify the CE opportunities in the con­
existing standard practices is another barrier to adopting circular stra­ struction sector and their drivers. Moreover, critical insights regarding
tegies in construction (Van Bueren et al., 2019). An example of this is the the differences between CE theory and its current state of practice are
lack of standards for the reuse of building materials (Huang et al., 2018). distilled based on the level of adoption and trends observed in the
Various authors have discussed the adoption of circular strategies in construction sector. By this means, active construction companies will
the built environment (Adams et al., 2017; Cheshire, 2016; Hossain become more aware of current trends and can learn from the most
et al., 2020; Minunno et al., 2020; Nuβholz et al., 2019). Analysis of successful circular businesses in their industry. Additionally, by
Strengths, Opportunities, Weaknesses and Threats (SWOT) of adopting improving CE knowledge among industry members, barriers towards
circular strategies in the construction industry is also observed in the achieving circularity can be reduced.
literature (Antwi-Afari et al., 2021). Notably, these strategies can be
implemented in different stages of the built environment lifecycle, such 3. Systematic review methodology
as design, construction (or making), and end-of-life (Adams et al., 2017;
Benachio et al., 2020; López Ruiz et al., 2020). The design of the built In this research, a systematic review methodology was undertaken to
environment significantly influences the reusability of materials and identify the state of development and implementation of CE principles in
components at the end-of-life of the project, as well as the C&D waste construction-related businesses. An overview of the current state of CE
generation throughout the project lifecycle. Munaro et al. (2020) principles in construction has the ultimate goal of identifying trends and
demonstrated that circular strategies are best adopted for design opti­ gaps in CE implementation, as well as enabling the development of
mization in early-stage design. Moreover, the authors also highlighted hypotheses and theories for optimizing future implementation of CE in
the critical role of policy and lifecycle optimization for improving built construction. In this research, empirical data acquired through multiple
environment circularity. Popular circular strategies related to the design case studies was utilized to identify the state of development and
phase of the built environment include (see references in Table 2): (1) implementation of CE in construction. Empirical data is valuable for
Design for Disassembly (DfD); (2) Design for Modularity; (3) Specify developing such understanding, since the objective of this research was
Reusable and Recyclable Materials; and (4) Design for Remanufacturing. not to test existing theories and hypotheses but rather to explore and
A different set of circular strategies is identified and proposed for the evaluate new ones based on the current companies active in imple­
construction (making) phase of the built environment. Based on the menting CE strategies (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Notably,
literature review and existing works, popular circular strategies adopted investigating empirical case studies to test hypotheses and gain insight
during construction can be summarized in the following (see references into an emerging topic is an approach frequently adopted among re­
in Table 2): (1) use (or support) of Material Banks; (2) Adoption of searchers in the field of construction (Chang et al., 2016; Fischer and
Efficient Processes; and (3) use of Waste as a Resource. Lastly, concerned Pascucci, 2017; Hartmann et al., 2008; Mostafa and Leite, 2018).
with the end-of-life phase, data management and reverse logistics of the Fig. 1 illustrates the research methodology adopted in this study. The
resources are identified as two different strategies that leverage circu­ literature review conducted and presented in Section 2 served as a basis
larity in the built environment. Arguably, differences in the classifica­ for the development of a CE knowledge framework, which was used to
tion and aggregation of the circular strategies were observed in the catalog data of the companies under study - the framework is described
literature depending on the source and authors reviewed. Nonetheless, in detail in Section 3.1. Identification of companies for case studies was
according to Bocken et al. (2016) and Cossu and Williams (2015), dif­ an iterative process that started with the selection of three or four well-
ferences in definitions and terminologies in the sustainability and CE established companies in different business types (business types
domains of knowledge are common. Table 2 synthesizes the aforemen­ examined in this study are outlined in Section 3.1). For instance, for the
tioned major circular strategies in the built environment and provides a Contractors business type, the top three green building contractors listed
common definition alongside related works that suggest these strategies in the Engineering News-Record (ENR) 2020 list were selected as a
as means of achieving a CE in the construction industry. starting point. The selection of these well-known companies in each
The construction industry has substantial potential to use the avail­ different business type formed an initial list with 20 companies for case
able circular business models and circular strategies rather than tackling studies. Notably, based on the top-ranking companies’ operation and
the lowest hanging fruit and sticking to traditional recycling approaches. performance metrics in each business type, different companies, often
Notably, in recent years, several sustainable business strategies have smaller and with varying focuses, were identified through Google and
emerged in the construction industry, which both industry and LinkedIn search engines. Adding the companies identified through the
academia can learn from. Nonetheless, regardless of the available CE aforementioned search engines formed an exhaustive list of 102 com­
theory and attempts to leverage circularity in the construction industry, panies for case studies, each of which had a focus on CE to some extent.

Fig. 1. Research methodology.

5
B.C. Guerra et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 324 (2021) 129125

Fig. 2. Circular economy knowledge structure framework.

Primarily, the availability of public data on the 102 companies was 3.1. Circular economy knowledge framework structure
assessed, and companies with limited available information not suitable
for analysis were eliminated. That is, the first criteria used to eliminate The analysis conducted in this study is based on data of companies
companies from the list was the lack of substantial publicly available cataloged into a CE knowledge framework that includes 33 attributes, as
data (Fischer and Pascucci, 2017). The second criteria used to eliminate demonstrated in Fig. 2. This framework was developed and refined ac­
companies was the similarity and redundancy of their objectives and cording to the literature review conducted and alongside the study of a
operations. After this initial screening, 21 companies were eliminated, large sample of companies. In sum, this framework was created to
resulting in a list of 81 companies used in this study. After the identi­ identify where each company stands with respect to the predefined at­
fication of the companies suitable for the study, an in-depth collection of tributes, as well as with regard to the adoption of CE notions. As shown
relevant data began. In this stage, the publicly available data was in Fig. 2, the attributes in this framework are divided into seven cate­
reviewed and analyzed through company websites, LinkedIn pages, gories, they are: (1) Business Types; (2) Circular Focus; (3) Lifecycle
published reports, and articles from trusted sources that had included Strategies adoption; (4) Circular Economy Focus; (5) Innovation; (6)
these companies and their products. Each company was extensively Circular Business Models adoption; and (7) Demographics (including,
studied and individually examined, and categorized accordingly based Size, Age, and Geographic Location).
on the developed CE knowledge framework. The first category classifies the companies based on their Business
Case-study research methodology was used to look for correlations Types to distinguish between various types of activities that take place in
and assess initial hypotheses based on a more in-depth investigation of the construction industry. The Business Types included in this frame­
empirical evidence (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Initial hypotheses work are: (1) Consulting and Research; (2) Materials and Assets Mar­
outlined for this study included: (1) there are positive correlations be­ ketplaces; (3) Automation and Software; (4) Waste and Material
tween a company’s demographics and its business type; (2) there is a Innovation Technology; (5) Services; (6) Healthcare; or (7) Contractors.
correspondence between a company focus and its business type, and the Notably, each company reviewed in this study was classified into only
adoption of specific circular business models; (3) there are strong cor­ one business type.
relations between business types and the adoption of certain business The next five categories in the framework (i.e., Circular Focus,
models by the companies; and (4) there is an interrelationship between Lifecycle Strategies adoption, Circular Economy Focus, Innovation, and
the companies’ business types and the adoption of specific circular Circular Business Models adoption) are specified in order to have a
strategies in different lifecycle stages. Following the population of the better understanding of the state of implementation of CE in the studied
framework, exploratory and descriptive statistical analysis was con­ companies. First, the Circular Focus of the companies is identified and
ducted based on the data collected. The majority of the analysis was mapped into four areas - i.e., Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Recover.
conducted to identify patterns between the companies, correlations Classification of the focus area of companies helps better understand the
between their operations, and the adoption of circular business models, general attitude of companies regarding circular strategies. The Life­
among others. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Fisher’s cycle Strategies of products and capital projects are mapped out in this
Exact Tests were the statistical tests conducted to investigate the framework using multiple categories in Design, Making, and Post-
aforementioned hypotheses, patterns, and correlations. delivery stages, as demonstrated in Fig. 2. Determining the involve­
ment of the companies in different project lifecycle stages helps identify

6
B.C. Guerra et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 324 (2021) 129125

Fig. 3. Global distribution of companies.

potential points of intervention that can improve the implementation of Waste as a Resource; and (9) Remanufacture.
circular strategies by the companies. Lastly, company details are outlined to better understand the general
Another attribute included in the framework is the Circular Economy characteristics and business statistics of the companies under study.
Focus, which helps specify if the entire company or portion of the Notably, the companies’ size and age are broken down into five sub­
company is working on developing and implementing circular strategies categories; and the geographic location of the company’s headquarter
or whether there is a collaboration between different companies. categories are North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, or
Additionally, the Innovation scope of the companies is studied and Africa, as demonstrated in Fig. 2.
classified into three sub-categories of innovation with suppliers, with
clients, or conducted internally. The next major category in the frame­ 4. Descriptive statistical data analysis
work is regarding the Circular Business Models implemented in the
companies studied. Nine circular business models are included in the This section presents the statistical analyses conducted with the data
framework, and each company is studied in terms of singular or multiple collected from the 81 companies under study. The first set of analyses
business models adopted. The investigated business models include: (1) conducted were concerning the demographic characteristics of these
Product as a Service; (2) Circular Supplies; (3) Product Life Extension; companies (i.e., size, geographic location, age) and their business type.
(4) Sharing Platform; (5) Resell; (6) Repair; (7) Resource Recovery; (8) Fig. 3A demonstrates the geographical location of the 81 companies

7
B.C. Guerra et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 324 (2021) 129125

age, size, or geographical location. The hypothesis evaluated was

whether any of the demographic characteristics were statistically
different for specific business types. For instance, the following ques­
tions were investigated: (1) do younger companies focus more on a
specific business type?; and (2) are European companies more inclined
towards a specific business type? Due to the homogeneity of the groups,
ANOVA was conducted with each demographic characteristic (i.e., size,
age, and location) and the seven different business types. Notably, no
demographic characteristic had a statistically significant (p < 0.05) in­
fluence on the adoption of a specific business type.
As described in Section 3.1, one of the attributes of the companies in
this study was related to their circular focus - i.e., companies under study
were classified as having a focus on: (1) Reducing; (2) Reusing; (3)
Recycling; and/or (4) Recovering. It is important to highlight that some
companies have more than one circular focus. Fig. 5 demonstrates the
Fig. 4. Age and company size. circular focus of the companies, which were grouped according to their
business type. Notably, over 46% of the companies in the Automation
and Software business type focus on Recycling, while Reducing and
Recovering make up 20% and 25% of the companies respectively, and
less than 7% of the companies focus on Reuse. When it comes to the
Consulting and Research companies, more than 45% focus on Reuse,
while 20% and 30% focus on Recycle and Reduce, and less than 10%
focus on Recover. Contractors are mainly focused on Reduce (42% of the
companies), and a very low number of Contractors focus on Reuse (7%).
Companies with a Healthcare business type engage circularity by
Recover, Recycling, and Reducing - notably; no companies focused on
Reuse. The vast majority of the Materials and Assets Marketplaces
companies focused on Reuse (75% of the companies), whereas only 5%
of the companies focused on Recycle. Notably, companies with a Service
business type followed a similar pattern of focus to companies with a
Consulting and Research business type. Waste and Material Innovation
Technology companies mainly focus on Recycling (42% of companies).
The second-largest group of companies (28%) focused on Reducing, and
the remainder are equally divided in focusing between Recovering and
Reusing.
Fisher’s Exact Test was conducted to verify whether there was a
Fig. 5. Number of companies in each business type, differentiated by focus. statistically significant difference in the adoption of a specific “Circular
Focus” based on the different business types. In this case, statistically
under study. While some companies are headquartered in Asia, Africa, significant differences (p < 0.05) have been observed for companies
South America, and Oceania, the great majority of the companies in this with a focus on “Recycling” and “Reuse”. Specifically, companies from
study are concentrated in the U.S. and Canada (Fig. 3B) and Europe Materials and Assets Marketplaces, Automation and Software, and
(Fig. 3C). Specifically, nine Canadian companies and 31 American Waste and Material Innovation Technology were the business types that
companies were studied. Notably, most of the American companies are presented a statistically significant different (p < 0.05) level of focus in
concentrated on the East and West coasts. In Europe, 29 companies were “Recycling”. Notably, Waste and Material Innovation Technology com­
studied, with a large concentration of these companies being located in panies were the ones that focused the most on “Recycling” (i.e., 30 out of
the Netherlands (a total of seven companies), and the remaining com­ 35 companies in this business type had a focus on Recycling). Such
panies are spread out in the West and Northern parts of the continent.
Fig. 4 shows the age and size of the companies studied. Overall, the
older and more established the companies are, the larger number of
employees they have. Nevertheless, exceptions exist, especially in the
Waste and Material Innovation and Contractors business types, in which
new companies (i.e., 0–5 years) with a large number of employees (i.e.,
501+) can be identified. Additionally, it was noted that companies with
Automation and Software, and Materials and Assets Marketplaces
business types were relatively new; that is, no company with the
aforementioned business types was older than 50 years.
Seven distinct business types were used to classify the companies in
this study, as demonstrated in Fig. 2 - ie., (1) Automation and Software
(total of 9 companies); (2) Consulting and Research (total of 6 com­
panies); (3) Contractors (total of 9 companies); (4) Healthcare (total of 2
companies); (5) Materials and Assets Marketplaces (total of 13 com­
panies); (6) Services (total of 8 companies); and (7) Waste and Material
Innovation Technology (total of 34 companies). The first statistical test
conducted in this study was to verify whether there was any correlation
between the prevalence of a specific business type and the companies’
Fig. 6. Comparison of number of businesses in each identified business model.

8
B.C. Guerra et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 324 (2021) 129125

Fig. 7. Number of companies in each business type by circular business model.

results can be corroborated by looking at the profile of these companies; aforementioned business types, Materials and Assets Marketplaces had
the vast majority have innovative solutions for the recycling of materials the strongest focus on “Reuse” (i.e., 11 out of 13 companies focused on
such as aluminum, carpet and flooring, glass, plastics, and carbon di­ it), whereas Automation and Software had the weakest focus on “Reuse”
oxide from the atmosphere. (i.e., only one company out of nine focused on it). Companies in the
On the other hand, Materials and Assets Marketplace were the Materials and Assets Marketplace business strongly focus on the sharing
companies that focused the least on “Recycling” (i.e., only one company of construction materials for reuse. The vast majority of these companies
out of 13 focused on Recycling). When it comes to companies with a provide a platform for connecting the supply and demand of materials
focus on “Reuse”, there was a statistically significant difference (p < and assets in a specific location. Notably, all companies in this business
0.05) in the level of adoption between companies with Materials and type are headquartered in Europe or North America.
Assets Marketplaces, Automation and Software, Waste and Material Based on the literature review conducted and the knowledge struc­
Innovation Technology, and Services business types. Among the ture developed, the adoption of nine major circular business models was

Fig. 8. Adoption of circular business models by companies’ circular focus.

9
B.C. Guerra et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 324 (2021) 129125

evaluated for the companies in this study. Fig. 6 demonstrates the companies in the Materials and Assets Marketplace business type). Ex­
number of companies adopting each business model. Notably, Waste as a amples of goods and materials shared and resold by these companies are
Resource is the most common business model implemented by 51 floor and roof tiles, plumbing fixtures, pipes, bricks, doors, equipment,
companies. Resource Recovery and Circular Supplies are the second among others. In terms of the Contractors business type, a strong
most utilized business models observed in this study, with 36 and 34 adoption of the Resource Recovery business model (i.e., seven out of
companies using these business models, respectively. About a quarter of nine companies adopt this business model) was noted. Notably, a good
the studied companies use Remanufacturing and Product Life Extension part of the companies reviewed in the Contractors business type mention
in their business models. Lastly, the least implemented business models on their websites the recovery of resources through urban mining or the
are Repair (in 11 companies), Sharing Platforms (in seven companies), recovery and reuse of materials and goods from different projects.
and Product as a Service (PaaS) (in six companies). Lastly, companies in the Waste and Material Innovation Technology
The relationships between business types and the adoption of spe­ business strongly adopted the Waste as a Resource business model (i.e.,
cific circular business models were also investigated. Fig. 7 demon­ 34 out of 35 companies adopt this business model). Overall, companies
strates the adoption of the nine business models according to the groups with this business type focus on providing innovative solutions for
of companies on each business type. ANOVA was used to investigate the recycling materials and waste - as such, strong adoption of the Waste as a
relationships between business types and business models. Notably, the Resource business model is expected.
results of the test demonstrated a statistically significant (p < 0.05) Adoption of certain business models given a company’s circular
difference between the adoption of the eight business models and focus (i.e., Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and/or Recover) was also evaluated.
business types. The only business model without a statistically signifi­ Fig. 8 demonstrates the adoption of each business model according to
cant difference (p > 0.05) was Product Life Extension. Post-hoc Sheffe the companies’ circular focus. ANOVA was also performed to evaluate if
tests were conducted to evaluate the adoption of specific business there was a statistically significant adoption of a specific business model
models by companies with different business types. The first result by companies with a given circular focus – e.g., companies with a focus
demonstrated that companies with a Service business type strongly on Reduce are more inclined to adopt the Sharing Platform business
adopted the PaaS business model. Notably, four out of eight companies model. Notably, there was a statistically significant difference in the
in the Service sector adopted the PaaS business model. In contrast, no adoption of certain business models by companies with a focus on Reuse,
company in Consulting and Research, Materials and Assets Market­ Recycle, and Recover – i.e., companies with a circular focus on Reduce
places, Waste and Material Innovation Technology, and Contractors did not present a statistically significant adoption of any circular busi­
business types adopted this business model. Companies in the Service ness model. Specifically, companies with a circular focus on Reuse had a
business type also strongly adopted the Repair and Remanufacture stronger adoption of Resell and Sharing Platform business models. Such
business models - both business models were adopted by six out of eight strong adoption of the aforementioned business models makes sense
companies in the Service sector. Examples of companies in the Service given that they focus on the resell of resources (e.g., materials and
business type provide lighting, batteries, carpet, and equipment as a equipment), potentially through online platforms that connect local
service. Moreover, some companies focus on repairing and remanu­ supply and demand, thus enabling the reuse of resources. Meanwhile,
facturing equipment. companies with a circular focus on Recycle presented a strong adoption
Sharing Platform and Resell are business models heavily adopted by of Resource Recovery and Waste as a Resource. The strong adoption of
companies in the Materials and Assets Marketplace business type. The the aforementioned business models are very aligned to companies with
vast majority of companies in this business type focus on matching the a focus on Recycling as these business models focus on converting waste
supply and demand of goods in a specific location for reusability in into secondary materials, and using the by-products of a primary system
different projects. Sharing Platform and Resell business models are to supply the required materials for a new product or system. Lastly,
adopted by four and 11 companies, respectively (out of the total 13 companies with a circular focus of Recover also demonstrated a strong

Fig. 9. Involvement of companies in project lifecycle stages, categorized by business type, age, and size.

10
B.C. Guerra et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 324 (2021) 129125

adoption of the Resource Recovery business model, and the Remanu­ circular strategy or business model increases, its business opportunities
facture business model. The strong adoption of remanufacturing busi­ and adoption by companies decreases. For example, the DfD circular
ness model by companies with a focus on Recover make sense as the strategy is more complex in terms of regulatory systems, supply chain,
main objective is this business model is to rebuild a product (i.e., recover building and technological systems, and financing arrangements, thus it
it) with its original specifications utilizing a combination or reused, provides smaller business opportunities and is currently less adopted
repaired, and new parts. across the industry. The same logic is observed for circular business
The last analysis conducted was related to the adoption of circular models – considerable disruption in the current business of a company
strategies in different phases of the project lifecycle (i.e., design, mak­ and difficulty in implementing complex concepts decreases the business
ing, post-delivery) and its relationship to the business types. Fig. 9 opportunities. On the other hand, simpler circular strategies and busi­
demonstrates this analysis. From Fig. 9, it can be inferred that com­ ness models such as Waste as a Resource, have less technological, reg­
panies with the Materials and Asset Marketplaces business type are ulatory and supply chain complexity, thus provide larger business
mainly small (2–10 employees) and young (0–10 years); most com­ opportunities for companies, and are more wide-spread in the industry.
panies operate in post-delivery with limited companies involved in Notably, one implication of this insight is that, until complexity is
making and design phases. Furthermore, it can be observed that the reduced and the concepts are well-understood, such circular business
larger and more established companies are common in the Service models and strategies will not become widespread in the industry.
business type and operate in all life cycles of capital projects (i.e., design, Another reason for the slow adoption of certain circular business
making, post-delivery). Notably, newer and smaller companies models, concluded from the ANOVA tests, is that companies with certain
concentrate their adoption of circular strategies only on one or two focuses are more inclined towards specific business models, and subse­
phases of the project lifecycle. quently, other business models are less applicable for them. For instance,
there is no implementation of the Sharing Platform business model for
5. Discussions companies focusing on Recover and Recycle, given that Sharing Plat­
forms do not contribute to the recovery or recycling of materials.
Companies in the construction industry have evidently started to Identification of the company’s main focus (i.e., Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,
take advantage of the CE and implement circularity principles in their Recover) can help specify the most applicable business models.
businesses. Nonetheless, plenty of opportunities still exist for earlier Another theoretical insight extracted from this global scan is that
adopters to start driving the shift towards circularity, especially in re­ new circular business opportunities emerge with technological and
gions where CE is still gaining traction – e.g., in South America, Africa, scientific advancements. As observed in this global scan, several com­
and Australia. Notably, the majority of the companies driving this shift panies are taking advantage of technological advancements (e.g., AI,
towards the CE are younger (i.e., 0–10 years) and smaller companies (i. robotics, online platforms) and are creating business opportunities to
e., 2–50 employees) seeking to take advantage of CE principles. The drive circularity in the construction sector. One example is the use of AI
success of CE principles in the process of larger companies is observed to and robotics for waste sorting – a business opportunity implemented by
be rarely based on the relevance of their core process and more often on six companies scanned in this study. Another example is the use of on­
a large company’s resources and agility in expanding and seeking new line platforms for materials and equipment marketplace – a relatively
opportunities through parallel ventures. From the 81 companies studied, new circular business opportunity adopted by 12 companies in this
Armstrong Flooring is the only established large company with an study. Moreover, advancement in materials science creates opportu­
original core business model based on recycling and reusing materials in nities for waste innovation, circular supplies, reuse, and recycling.
their products, a strategy that they have been developing since the late Notably, Waste and Material Innovation Technology comprised the
1800s (Armstrong, 2020). Other large companies studied, including largest group of companies under study (total of 34 companies), and
Veolia and BASF, incorporate innovation in their business strategy and examples of products include low CO2 cement, bio-cement, plastics
continuously incorporate innovative processes to improve their existing recycle for asphalt mix, among others. Additional evidence of how
systems. The VIA by Veolia program allows for innovation and devel­ technology can leverage CE is available in other research, examples
opment of new offerings within the larger company. VIA seeks to include the use of block chain, radio frequency identification (RFID),
develop partnerships with startups and innovative companies and re­ and internet of things (IoT) to enable materials traceability and infor­
sponds to emerging opportunities (Veolia, 2021). BASF actively partic­ mation tracking (Shojaei et al., 2021; Ranta et al., 2021; Nascimento
ipates in industry innovation through academic research within their et al., 2018). Moreover, the use of block chain, IoT, AI, robotics, and big
global university network, research and development (R&D) data to close loops on packaging waste (Ajwani-Ramchandani et al.,
co-operations with other industry partners, and through the BASF 2021). In sum, the aforementioned business opportunities were not
Venture Capital, investing in innovative startups. These initiatives allow possible without the corresponding technological and scientific ad­
the company to expand its market knowledge and seek new opportu­ vancements, thus highlighting an interdependency between academia
nities (BASF, 2021). An evident opportunity observed for larger com­ and industry for CE implementation in construction.
panies is to invest in automation and software through intrapreneurship Looking at the available CE literature, significant work has been
and spin-off companies. There is also an opportunity for larger firms done on studying different circular business models, not only in the
involved in Consulting and Research, to invest in research in the design construction industry but also in other industries such as fashion and
and post-delivery life cycle stages to further explore business opportu­ textile (Benachio et al., 2020; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013;
nities (Fig. 9). Fischer and Pascucci, 2017; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Pieroni et al.,
Major theoretical insights were distilled from this global scan. The 2019). Nonetheless, no study yet focused on assessing the current level
first insight is regarding the correlation between the complexity of cir­ of adoption of CE principles by construction companies around the
cular strategies and circular business models’ and business opportu­ globe. One practical insight that emerged from this global scan is that
nities. Findings indicate that Waste as a Resource, Resource Recovery, the CE theory is currently broader and more advanced than the practice
and Circular Supplies are the low-hanging fruits of CE adoption (Fig. 6). that has been observed in construction companies. In theory, the circular
Notably, the aforementioned circular business models are the easiest to business models and circular strategies are quite easy to understand and
“understand” and adopt in the construction industry. On the contrary, implement (Rahla et al., 2021). However, the present investigation of
Sharing Platform and PaaS are the most disruptive business models, construction companies implementing circular strategies indicates that
strongly adopted only by companies with a focus on Reduce and Reuse, among the various circular business models, only a limited number is
but with overall slow adoption across all companies. Based on the widely implemented by companies (e.g., Waste as a Resource), whereas
aforementioned findings, it can be inferred that as the complexity of a certain business models (e.g., Sharing Platforms) are still not widely

11
B.C. Guerra et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 324 (2021) 129125

adopted in the industry. Another practical insight distilled from this One limitation of this study is the possibility that additional active
global scan is that while the CE theory focuses on collaboration among companies in the construction industry are taking advantage of CE
stakeholders of the supply chain in order to close materials and re­ strategies and principles, and these companies were not reviewed and
sources loops, part of the companies in this investigation apply circular included in this study. Yet, due to resource constraints, the infeasibility
strategies and business models alone and collaboration is limited. That to evaluate all existing construction-related companies worldwide is
is, overall, the CE applications are still in silos, which is a distinction acknowledged. Furthermore, data collection was performed based on
between CE theory and practice (Kalmykova et al., 2018). publicly available data, which were mostly reported by companies
Notably, the current global scan of the construction companies active themselves. In this case, there is the possibility of “greenwashing” in the
in applying different circular business models also brings insight into the information that companies report of themselves. With the current trend
level of knowledge and understanding of CE strategies. The presented of sustainable development, companies attempt to claim progress to­
framework and results help interested members in the construction in­ wards this goal; however, some of these claims may not be accurate or
dustry identify possible applicable circular business models and overall reflect the reality. Lastly, interpretations were made according to the
strategies for their business plans. On the other hand, the low applica­ publicly available data to fit the information into the CE knowledge
tion of certain business models in a specific business type can indicate framework developed, which might have led to inaccuracy in some cases
opportunities for construction companies interested in entering the CE - especially for large companies that have multiple operations.
world. For instance, Sharing Platforms and PaaS are two of the least A possible future path that can stem from this study is a more
implemented business models in the construction industry. A deeper detailed investigation of the selected companies through surveys and
investigation into the required resources and technologies for the interviews. This could lead to gaining insights that are more thorough
application of these business models can help companies better leverage than what is understood from publicly available data. Moreover, the
them. A barrier identified through the company scan is that more study can be scaled up to include more companies, focusing on the areas
established companies might have better access to the required re­ of the world that were not included in this analysis, such as companies
sources for the implementation of CE strategies. Such finding corrobo­ located in Asia, Africa, and South America. Additionally, another path is
rates with Rizos et al. (2016) investigation of barriers in the to investigate the value of a unified third-party audit that could monitor
implementation of CE business models by small and medium-sized en­ the performance of companies in the construction industry with respect
terprises. In contrast, recently established companies might not be to the implementation of CE principles. By this means, the possibility of
willing to take the risk to adopt CE since it is still a new and developing untruthful claims by companies will be reduced. This can ultimately lead
concept. According to Gue et al. (2020), assurance of success is a barrier to a comprehensive framework for evaluating the circularity of con­
in transitioning towards circular business models; often, companies struction companies.
require demonstrations of success by other businesses first. However,
some startups might still be interested if their goals are primarily based CRediT authorship contribution statement
on CE and they have access to funds that can support their businesses.
Uncertainties exist with the financial gains of CE business models, which Beatriz C. Guerra: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
might discourage some companies in the construction sector from Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
following CE concepts. Sheida Shahi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal
analysis, Writing – original draft, Visualization. Aida Mollaei:
6. Conclusions Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Nathalie Skaf: Investigation. Olaf Weber: Writing – review & editing,
In this study, a global scan of 81 companies with focus on different Supervision. Fernanda Leite: Resources, Writing – review & editing,
aspects of the construction industry was conducted with the objective of Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Carl Haas:
identifying the state of development and implementation of CE princi­ Resources, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project adminis­
ples across the industry. Based on major CE concepts identified through tration, Funding acquisition.
a literature review, a knowledge framework was developed and used to
catalog publicly available data of the companies under study. Statistical Declaration of competing interest
analysis was conducted to explore and describe the data collected, and
major findings were outlined. This study’s primary contribution to the The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
CE body of knowledge includes a novel knowledge framework, which interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
coupled with a multiple case study methodology enabled to scan the the work reported in this paper.
state of adoption of CE in the construction sector – which was still a gap
in the literature. Notably, the framework developed in this study can be Acknowledgments
adapted to perform scans of CE adoption in other relevant sectors. The
secondary contribution of this study to the body of knowledge include This research was funded by the Construction Industry Institute (CII).
theoretical insights regarding circular strategies complexity and busi­ The conclusions herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily
ness opportunities, as well as the role of technology in enabling new reflect the views of CII. The authors would like to thank the industry
circular business models. Specifically, the aforementioned insights members of Research Team RT-380 for their insights, input, and guid­
enable a better understanding of the disparity and interrelation between ance throughout the development of this research.
academia and industry when it comes to CE implementation. The
practical contributions of the study include: (1) an assessment of the
References
current level of knowledge and application of CE strategies by com­
panies in different geographic regions and with varying business types Acharya, D., Boyd, R., Finch, O., 2018. First Steps towards a Circular Built Environment.
related to the construction industry; (2) identification of popular cir­ Adams, K., Osmani, M., Thorpe, T., Hobbs, G., 2017. The Role of the Client to Enable
Circular Economy in the Building Sector. In: International HISER Conference on
cular business models adopted by companies in the construction sector;
Advances in Recycling and Management of Construction and Demolition Waste,
and (3) identification of gaps and areas of opportunities for leveraging June, 118–121. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:51ba494a-fdf4-
circularity in the built environment. As such, findings of this study can 41a9-8f65-87140dfd5d97?collection=research.
aid both industry members and academics to understand the current Ajwani-Ramchandani, R., Figueira, S., Torres de Oliveira, R., Jha, S., Ramchandani, A.,
Schuricht, L., 2021. Towards a circular economy for packaging waste by using new
state of adoption of CE principles by construction companies, and how it technologies: the case of large multinationals in emerging economies. J. Clean. Prod.
differs from CE theory. 281, 125139 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125139.

12
B.C. Guerra et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 324 (2021) 129125

Akadiri, P., Chinyio, E., Olomolaiye, P., 2012. Design of a sustainable building: a Elia, V., Gnoni, M.G., Tornese, F., 2020. Evaluating the adoption of circular economy
conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector. practices in industrial supply chains: an empirical analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 273,
Buildings 2 (2), 126–152. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings2020126. 122966 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122966.
Akanbi, L., Oyedele, L., Omoteso, K., Bilal, M., Akinade, O., Ajayi, A., Davila Delgado, J. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013. Towards the Circular Economy - Economic and
M., Owolabi, H., 2019. Disassembly and deconstruction analytics system (D-DAS) for Business Rationale for an Accelerted Tranisiton, vol. 1.
construction in a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 223, 386–396. https://doi.org/ Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015. Delivering the Circular Economy a Toolkit for
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.172. Policymakers, pp. 19–32.
Akinade, O., Oyedele, L., Bilal, M., Ajayi, S., Owolabi, H., Alaka, H., Bello, S.A., 2015. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016. Rethinking the Future of Plastics RETHINKING the
Waste minimisation through deconstruction: a bim based deconstructability FUTURE of PLASTICS the NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY. Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
assessment score (BIM-DAS). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 105, 167–176. https://doi. pp. 1–120. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/EllenMac
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.018. ArthurFoundation_NewPlasticsEconomy_21-1-2016.pdf.
Anastasiades, K., Blom, J., Buyle, M., Audenaert, A., 2020. Translating the circular Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020. What Is the Circular Economy. https://www.ellenma
economy to bridge construction: lessons learnt from a critical literature review. carthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/what-is-the-circular-economy.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 117 (September 2019), 109522 https://doi.org/ FCRBE (Facilitating the Circulation of Reclaimed Building Elements), 2019. Review of
10.1016/j.rser.2019.109522. Existing Pre-demolition Tools, Policies, Resources for Identifying, Quantifying and
Angelis, R. De, 2021. Circular economy and paradox theory: a business model Organizing the Reclamation of Reusable Elements. FCRBE.
perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 285, 124823 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Fischer, A., Pascucci, S., 2017. Institutional incentives in circular economy transition: the
jclepro.2020.124823. case of material use in the Dutch textile industry. J. Clean. Prod. 155, 17–32. https://
Antwi-Afari, P., Ng, S.T., Hossain, M.U., 2021. A review of the circularity gap in the doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.038.
construction industry through scientometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 298, 126870 Foster, G., 2020. Circular economy strategies for adaptive reuse of cultural heritage
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126870. buildings to reduce environmental impacts. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 152 (October
Armstrong, Flooring, 2020. Ingrained Innovation. Retrieved from. https://www.armstro 2019), 104507 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104507.
ngflooring.com/corporate/en-us/about/innovation.html. Fraccascia, L., Yazan, D.M., 2018. The role of online information-sharing platforms on
Arora, M., Raspall, F., Cheah, L., Silva, A., 2020. Buildings and the circular economy: the performance of industrial symbiosis networks. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 136,
estimating urban mining, recovery and reuse potential of building components. 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.03.009.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 154 (November 2019), 104581 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Geissdoerfer, M., Pieroni, M., Pigosso, D., Soufani, K., 2020. Circular business models: a
resconrec.2019.104581. review. J. Clean. Prod. 277, 123741 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Augiseau, V., Barles, S., 2017. Studying construction materials flows and stock: a review. jclepro.2020.123741.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 123, 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The Circular Economy
resconrec.2016.09.002. – a new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 757–768. https://doi.org/
BAMB, 2017. Framework for Material Passports, vol. 642384, p. 125. https://www.ba 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
mb2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Framework-for-Materials-Passports-for Grafström, J., Aasma, S., 2021. Breaking circular economy barriers. J. Clean. Prod. 292
-the-webb.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126002.
BASF, 2021. Innovation for a Sustainable Future. Retrieved from. https://www.basf. Gue, I.H.V., Promentilla, M.A.B., Tan, R.R., Ubando, A.T., 2020. Sector perception of
com/ca/en/who-we-are/innovation.html. circular economy driver interrelationships. J. Clean. Prod. 276, 123204 https://doi.
Benachio, G.L.F., Freitas, M. do C.D., Tavares, S.F., 2020. Circular economy in the org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123204.
construction industry: a systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 260, 121046 Guy, G.B., Ciarimboli, N.J., 2008. Design for Disassembly in the Built Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121046. Hartmann, T., Gao, J., Fischer, M., 2008. Areas of application for 3D and 4D models on
Bocken, N., Schuit, C., Kraaijenhagen, C., 2018. Experimenting with a circular business construction projects. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 134 (10), 776–785. https://doi.org/
model: lessons from eight cases. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 28 (December 2017), 10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2008)134:10(776).
79–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.02.001. Hatcher, G.D., Ijomah, W.L., Windmill, J.F.C., 2011. Design for remanufacture: a
Bocken, Nancy, Miller, K., Evans, S., 2016. Assessing the Environmental Impact of New literature review and future research needs. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (17–18), 2004–2014.
Circular Business Models. In: New Business Models - Exploring a Changing View on https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.06.019.
Organizing Value Creation, June, 16–17. https://www.researchgate.net/pu Heinrich, M., Lang, W., 2019. Materials Passports - Best Practice.
blication/305264490. Hobson, K., Lynch, N., Lilley, D., Smalley, G., 2018. Systems of practice and the Circular
Brambilla, G., Lavagna, M., Vasdravellis, G., Castiglioni, C.A., 2019. Environmental Economy: transforming mobile phone product service systems. Environ. Innov. Soc.
benefits arising from demountable steel-concrete composite floor systems in Trans. 26, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.04.002.
buildings. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141 (October 2018), 133–142. https://doi.org/ Hossain, M., Ng, S., Antwi-Afari, P., Amor, B., 2020. Circular economy and the
10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.014. construction industry: existing trends, challenges and prospective framework for
Brown, P., Bocken, N., Balkenende, R., 2019. Why do companies pursue collaborative sustainable construction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 130 (October 2019), 109948
circular oriented innovation? Sustainability 11 (3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109948.
su11030635. Hosseini, M., Rameezdeen, R., Chileshe, N., Lehmann, S., 2015. Reverse logistics in the
Calzolari, T., Genovese, A., Brint, A., 2021. The adoption of circular economy practices in construction industry. Waste Manag. Res. 33 (6), 499–514. https://doi.org/
supply chains – an assessment of European Multi-National Enterprises. J. Clean. 10.1177/0734242X15584842.
Prod. 312 (November 2020), 127616 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Huang, B., Zhao, F., Fishman, T., Chen, W., Heeren, N., 2018. Building material use and
jclepro.2021.127616. associated environmental impacts in China 2000–2015 [Research-article]. Environ.
Chang, R., Zuo, J., Soebarto, V., Zhao, Z., Zillante, G., Gan, X., 2016. Sustainability Sci. Technol. 52, 14006–14014. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b04104.
transition of the Chinese construction industry: practices and behaviors of the Jaillon, L., Poon, C.S., 2014. Life cycle design and prefabrication in buildings: a review
leading construction firms. J. Manag. Eng. 32 (4), 05016009 https://doi.org/ and case studies in Hong Kong. Autom. ConStruct. 39, 195–202. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000439. 10.1016/j.autcon.2013.09.006.
Chang, Y.T., Hsieh, S.H., 2019. A preliminary case study on circular economy in taiwan’s Kalmykova, Y., Sadagopan, M., Rosado, L., 2018. Circular economy - from review of
construction. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 225 (1) https://doi.org/10.1088/ theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resour. Conserv.
1755-1315/225/1/012069. Recycl. 135 (October 2017), 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Cheshire, D., 2016. BUILDING REVOLUTIONS Applying the Circular Economy to the resconrec.2017.10.034.
Built Environment. In: Gibbons, Fay (Ed.). RIBA Publishing. Kamali, M., Hewage, K., 2016. Life cycle performance of modular buildings: a critical
Chinda, T., Ammarapala, V., 2016. Decision-making on reverse logistics in the review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 62, 1171–1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
construction industry. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 38 (1), 7–14. rser.2016.05.031.
Çimen, Ö., 2021. Construction and built environment in circular economy: a Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an
comprehensive literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 305 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127 (September), 221–232.
jclepro.2021.127180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005.
Cossu, R., Williams, I.D., 2015. Urban mining: conecepts, terminology, challenges. Waste Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., Seppälä, J., 2017. Circular economy: the concept and its
Manag. 45, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.040. limitations. Ecol. Econ. 143, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
de Jesus, A., Mendonça, S., 2018. Lost in transition? Drivers and barriers in the eco- ecolecon.2017.06.041.
innovation road to the circular economy. Ecol. Econ. 145 (August 2017), 75–89. Kyro, R., Jylha, T., Peltokorpi, A., 2019. Embodying circularity through useable
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.001. relocatable modular buildings. Facilities 37, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-12-
Desing, H., Brunner, D., Takacs, F., Nahrath, S., Frankenberger, K., Hischier, R., 2020. 2017-0129.
A circular economy within the planetary boundaries: towards a resource-based, Lacy, P., Rutqvist, J., 2015. The Sharing Platform Business Model: Sweating Idle Assets.
systemic approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 155 (November 2018) https://doi.org/ In: Waste to Wealth. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104673. 9781137530707_7.
Eberhardt, L.C.M., Birgisdottir, H., Birkved, M., 2019. Potential of circular economy in Lanau, M., Liu, G., Kral, U., Wiedenhofer, D., Keijzer, E., Yu, C., Ehlert, C., 2019. Taking
sustainable buildings. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 471 (9), 0–10. https://doi.org/ stock of built environment stock Studies : progress and prospects [Review-article].
10.1088/1757-899X/471/9/092051. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 8499–8515. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06652.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., 2007. Theory building from Cases : opportunities and Lewandowski, M., 2016. Designing the business models for circular economy-towards
challenges linked references are available on JSTOR for this article : theory building the conceptual framework. Sustainability 8 (1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/
from CASES : opportunities and challenges. Organ. Res. Methods 50 (1), 25–32. su8010043.

13
B.C. Guerra et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 324 (2021) 129125

Li, H., Bao, W., Xiu, C., Zhang, Y., Xu, H., 2010. Energy conservation and circular Potting, J., Hekkert, M., Worrell, E., Hanemaaijer, A., 2017. Circular economy:
economy in China’s process industries. Energy 35 (11), 4273–4281. https://doi.org/ measuring innovation in the product chain. PBL Netherlands Environ. Assess.
10.1016/j.energy.2009.04.021. Agency 2544, 42.
Liakos, N., Kumar, V., Pongsakornrungsilp, S., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Gupta, B., Rahla, K., Mateus, R., Bragança, L., 2021. Implementing circular economy strategies in
Pongsakornrungsilp, P., 2019. Understanding circular economy awareness and buildings—from theory to practice. Applied System Innovation 4 (2), 26. https://doi.
practices in manufacturing firms. J. Enterprise Inf. Manag. 32 (4), 563–584. https:// org/10.3390/asi4020026.
doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-02-2019-0058. Ranta, V., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Väisänen, J.M., 2021. Digital technologies catalyzing
Lieder, M., Rashid, A., 2016. Towards circular economy implementation: a business model innovation for circular economy—multiple case study. Resour.
comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 115, Conserv. Recycl. 164 (September 2020), 105155 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042. resconrec.2020.105155.
Linder, M., Williander, M., 2017. Circular business model innovation: inherent Rasmussen, F.N., Birkved, M., Birgisdóttir, H., 2019. Upcycling and Design for
uncertainties. Bus. Strat. Environ. 26 (2), 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Disassembly - LCA of buildings employing circular design strategies. IOP Conf. Ser.
bse.1906. Earth Environ. Sci. 225 (1) https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/012040.
Liu, Y., Bai, Y., 2014. An exploration of firms’ awareness and behavior of developing Rizos, V., Behrens, A., van der Gaast, W., Hofman, E., Ioannou, A., Kafyeke, T.,
circular economy: an empirical research in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 87, Flamos, A., Rinaldi, R., Papadelis, S., Hirschnitz-Garbers, M., Topi, C., 2016.
145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.04.002. Implementation of circular economy business models by small and medium-sized
López Ruiz, L., Roca Ramón, X., Gassó Domingo, S., 2020. The circular economy in the enterprises (SMEs): barriers and enablers. Sustainability 8 (11). https://doi.org/
construction and demolition waste sector – a review and an integrative model 10.3390/su8111212.
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 248 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119238. Rose, C.M., Stegemann, J.A., 2018. Characterising existing buildings as material banks
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Gold, S., Bocken, N., 2019. A review and typology of circular (E-BAMB) to enable component reuse. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.: Eng. Sustain. 172 (3),
economy business model patterns. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (1), 36–61. https://doi.org/ 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1680/jensu.17.00074.
10.1111/jiec.12763. Saha, K., Dey, P., Papagiannaki, E., 2021. Implementing circular economy in the textile
Ma, S., Hu, S., Chen, D., Zhu, B., 2015. A case study of a phosphorus chemical firm’s and clothing industry. Bus. Strat. Environ. 30 (4), 1497–1530. https://doi.org/
application of resource efficiency and eco-efficiency in industrial metabolism under 10.1002/bse.2670.
circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 87 (1), 839–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Salvador, R., Barros, M., Freire, F., Halog, A., Piekarski, C., De Francisco, A., 2021.
jclepro.2014.10.059. Circular economy strategies on business modelling: identifying the greatest
Mahpour, A., 2018. Prioritizing barriers to adopt circular economy in construction and influences. J. Clean. Prod. 299, 126918 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
demolition waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 134, 216–227. https://doi. jclepro.2021.126918.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.026. Sarja, M., Onkila, T., Mäkelä, M., 2021. A systematic literature review of the transition to
Miflin, C., Chambers, M., Anderson, B., Novak, A., Knust, S., Grace, C., 2017. Zero Waste the circular economy in business organizations: obstacles, catalysts and
Design Guidelines. https://www.zerowastedesign.org/. ambivalences. J. Clean. Prod. 286 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125492.
Minunno, R., O’Grady, T., Morrison, G., Gruner, R., 2020. Exploring environmental Schandl, A.H., Fischer-kowalski, M., West, J., Giljum, S., Dittrich, M., Eisenmenger, N.,
benefits of reuse and recycle practices: a circular economy case study of a modular Geschke, A., Lieber, M., Wieland, H., Schaffartzik, A., Lenzen, M., Tanikawa, H.,
building. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 160 (March), 104855 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Miatto, A., 2016. GLOBAL MATERIAL FLOWS and RESOURCE - Assessment Report
resconrec.2020.104855. for the UNEP International Resource Panel.
Mondal, M., Bose, B., Bansal, P., 2019. Recycling waste thermoplastic for energy efficient Shojaei, A., Ketabi, R., Razkenari, M., Hakim, H., Wang, J., 2021. Enabling a circular
construction materials: an experimental investigation. J. Environ. Manag. 240 (May economy in the built environment sector through blockchain technology. J. Clean.
2018), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.016. Prod. 294, 126352 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126352.
Mostafa, K., Leite, F., 2018. Evolution of bim adoption and implementation by the Smol, M., Kulczycka, J., Henclik, A., Gorazda, K., Wzorek, Z., 2015. The possible use of
construction industry over the past decade: a replication study. Construction Resear. sewage sludge ash (SSA) in the construction industry as a way towards a circular
Congr. 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784481264.018. economy. J. Clean. Prod. 95, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.051.
Munaro, M., Tavares, S., Bragança, L., 2020. Towards circular and more sustainable United Nations, 2019. World Population Prospects 2019. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
buildings: a systematic literature review on the circular economy in the built gov/pubmed/12283219.
environment. J. Clean. Prod. 260 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121134. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2017. Advancing Sustainable Materials
Nascimento, D., Alencastro, V., Quelhas, O., Caiado, R., Garza-Reyes, J., Lona, L., Management: 2017 Fact Sheet.
Tortorella, G., 2018. Exploring Industry 4.0 technologies to enable circular economy United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2018. Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle
practices in a manufacturing context: a business model proposal. J. Manuf. Technol. Construction and Demolition Materials at Land Revitalization Projects.
Manag. 30 (3), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0071. Van Bueren, B., Leenders, M., Nordling, T., 2019. Case Study: taiwan’s pathway into a
Ness, D., Xing, K., 2017. Toward a resource-efficient built environment: a literature circular future for buildings. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 225 (1) https://doi.
review and conceptual model. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 572–592. https://doi.org/ org/10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/012060.
10.1111/jiec.12586. Van Loon, P., Diener, D., Harris, S., 2021. Circular products and business models and
Nobre, G., Tavares, E., 2021. The quest for a circular economy final definition: a environmental impact reductions: current knowledge and knowledge gaps. J. Clean.
scientific perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 314 (June), 127973 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Prod. 288, 125627 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125627.
jclepro.2021.127973. Vanegas, P., Peeters, J., Cattrysse, D., Tecchio, P., Ardente, F., Mathieux, F., Dewulf, W.,
Nußholz, J.L.K., 2018. A circular business model mapping tool for creating value from Duflou, J.R., 2018. Ease of disassembly of products to support circular economy
prolonged product lifetime and closed material loops. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 185–194. strategies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 135 (May 2017), 323–334. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.112. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.022.
Nußholz, J.L.K., Nygaard Rasmussen, F., Milios, L., 2019. Circular building materials: Velenturf, A.P.M., Jopson, J.S., 2019. Making the business case for resource recovery.
carbon saving potential and the role of business model innovation and public policy. Sci. Total Environ. 648, 1031–1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141 (October 2018), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2018.08.224.
resconrec.2018.10.036. Veolia, 2021. VIA by Veolia’s Calls for Solutions. Retrieved from. https://www.veolia.co
Nußholz, J.L.K., Rasmussen, F.N., Whalen, K., Plepys, A., 2020. Material reuse in m/en/veolia-group/innovation/open-playground-veolia.
buildings: implications of a circular business model for sustainable value creation. Vermunt, D.A., Negro, S.O., Verweij, P.A., Kuppens, D.V., Hekkert, M.P., 2019. Exploring
J. Clean. Prod. 245, 118546 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118546. barriers to implementing different circular business models. J. Clean. Prod. 222,
Osmani, M., Glass, J., Price, A., 2008. Architects’ perspectives on construction waste 891–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.052.
reduction by design. Waste Manag. 28 (7), 1147–1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Vidal-Legaz, B., Blenigini, G., Mathieux, F., Latunussa, C., 2018. European Innovation
wasman.2007.05.011. Partnership on Raw Materials, Raw Materials Scoreboard 2018. https://doi.org/
Ottosen, L., Bertelsen, I., Jensen, P., Kirkelund, G., 2020. Sewage sludge ash as resource 10.2873/08258.
for phosphorous and material for clay brick manufacturing. Construct. Build. Mater. Whalen, K.A., 2019. Three circular business models that extend product value and their
249, 118684 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118684. contribution to resource efficiency. J. Clean. Prod. 226, 1128–1137. https://doi.org/
Pieroni, M., McAloone, T., Pigosso, D., 2019. Business model innovation for circular 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.128.
economy and sustainability: a review of approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 215, 198–216. Wit, M., Verstraeten-Jochemsen, J., Hoogzaad, J., Kubbinga, B., 2019. The Circularity
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.036. Gap Report 2019: Closing the Circularity Gap in a 9% World. Circle Economy.
World Economic Forum, 2016. Shaping the Future of Construction A Breakthrough in
Mindset and Technology.

14