Barriers to transitioning to circular economy within firms in Western Balkans countries

Introduction: The circular economy has gained considerable attention within academia and industry as a sustainable alternative to linear economic models that minimize waste and maximize resource value in the production cycle. Despite growing interest in adopting circular economy practices within firms, numerous challenges remain. We address this gap by investigating the barriers to transitioning to a circular economy, as the current implementation in practice often needs to be more complete.

Methods: Using a quantitative approach, this research examines the CE barriers influencing Western Balkans firms to become more environmentally responsible business. The analysis is based on data from the Regional Cooperation Council's Business Balkan Barometer 2024 database, compiled through the Business Opinion Survey, for which logistic regression analysis was employed.

Results: The findings reveal that firms reporting barriers, such as added costs, lack of skills and experience, lack of consumer demand, and lack of government subsidies, are statistically significant in the probability of becoming more environmentally responsible business. By contrast, the lack of legal and regulatory framework was not found to be significant.

Discussion: The study contributes a comprehensive analysis of these barriers that validate and complement previous research, offering stakeholders within Western Balkan countries an additional perspective to overcome the current challenges, thereby fostering the transition to becoming a more environmentally responsible business.

Introduction

Globalization has expanded markets and intensified competition but has also influenced the increased complexity of firms' supply chains (Sheffi, 2018). Lucas et al. (2014) highlights that there is a continuous increase in global consumption, which means more pressure on environmental sustainability and social wellbeing, necessitating an immediate response to the current linear economic model. The linear model, characterized by a take-make-dispose approach, depends on the excessive consumption of natural resources; it has been followed by the global economy, placing significant pressure on the planet's ecosystems. This could be a more efficient approach that results in the loss of materials in landfills (Groene, 2020), the loss of valuable resources, and a decline in biodiversity (Otekenari, 2020).

Current estimates by Circle Economy (2020) indicate that the global economy consumes more than 100 billion tons of material annually, which calls for a shift in this trend to address the demand for population growth and resource scarcity. Failure to transform consumption patterns will pose significant risks for future generations (The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). The CE concept is increasingly used by academic policymakers and global firms that can contribute to the shift to a more sustainable economic system (Bradford, 2020; Schroeder et al., 2019). Balaj and Mahmutaj (2023) believe that CE strategies can bring environmental, social, and economic benefits, such as reducing the reliance on new resources, minimizing waste, unlocking new market opportunities, enhancing products' value, and improving social welfare.

Firms strive to continuously bring new products and services to maintain a competitive position in the market. Despite challenges like resource scarcity, many companies continue to remanufacture due to the potential for higher profit margins (Lund and Hauser, 2010). To achieve long-term success, firms have to incorporate principles of sustainable development, which means reducing resource consumption during production and generating revenues from their offerings (Beuren et al., 2013). The circular economy concept has gained attention to address the linearity of current product lifecycles, with specific attention to the irrational use of non-renewable resources, leading to serious ecological and social consequences (Amui et al., 2017). Waste is generated at every stage of the product's lifecycle, with the end-of-life phase being particularly the least sustainable due to the significant waste generated during demolition (Charef et al., 2021). CE concept aims to shift the linear economy into a loop or circular system by repurposing waste from one product as a resource for another (Andersen, 2007). This approach emphasizes using fewer resources for production processes and extending product lifespan (Vatansever et al., 2021) through maintenance and repair rather than producing new products to replace old or damaged ones (Amui et al., 2017).

The CE adoption differs among developed and developing countries. It has been adopted first in developed European countries, such as the UK, Germany, France, and Italy, with the highest average of investments between 2006 and 2016 (Marino and Pariso, 2020). In contrast, the CE concept in developing countries has been limited; it remains a relatively new concept, where consumers and producers adhere to the traditional linear consumption model (Abdul Hamid, 2020). Developing countries urgently need to lead the adoption and implementation of the CE, and the public needs to understand that a CE concept goes beyond just waste management and recycling (Ting et al., 2023). Thus, with the literature gap, especially in developing countries, firms must understand the barriers to transitioning from the dominant linear economy to CE in WBC.

Although research on barriers to the transition to CE (Prendeville et al., 2014; Govindan et al., 2014; Ritzen and Sandstrom, 2016; De Jesus and Mendonca, 2018; Galvão et al., 2018; Ormazabal et al., 2018; Bressanelli et al., 2019; Farooque et al., 2019; Mura et al., 2020) has been growing recently, studies on this topic are still lacking in the context of emerging economies, particularly in the Western Balkans. The study seeks to address this research gap by answering the following question: What barriers do firms in the WBC face in transitioning to a CE? The remainder of the study is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a comprehensive literature review, offering an overview of the CE concept and existing barriers to transitioning to CE within firms. A description of data collection and methodology is followed. The data analysis and a summary provide suggestions on opportunities for further research and policy and practical implications. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of CE barriers, particularly in developing contexts, for policymakers and practitioners to make effective policies and sustainable business models within firms.

Theoretical background

Circular economy

The increasing global population, rising purchasing power, and growing consumption habits lead to higher demand for limited resources (Andrews, 2015). To achieve sustainable development, shifting from linear to circular models within firms is vital, focusing on promoting efficient usage of resources and waste reduction (Blomsma and Tennant, 2020). The origin of CE has its roots in the work of ecological economist Kenneth Boulding from 1966, who discussed the necessity for a closed economic system to ensure alignment with environmental sustainability (Boulding, 1966; Fischer and Achterberg, 2016). Subsequently, Turner and Pearce (1990) further developed the concept, using the term CE to describe the shift from a linear to a circular economy based on the thermodynamics laws (Ghisellini et al., 2016).

Over time, the CE concept has evolved into a comprehensive economic system. One of the most universally accepted definitions for CE is by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation:

“The circular economy refers to an industrial economy that is restorative by intention; aims to rely on renewable energy; minimizes, tracks, and eliminates the use of toxic chemicals; and eradicates waste through careful design” (The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). CE is also defined as “a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimized by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops. This can be achieved through long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling” (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017, p. 766). According to the Circular Economy action plan, the “value of products, materials, and resources is maintained in the economy for as long as possible, and the generation of waste minimized... to develop a sustainable, low carbon, resource efficient and competitive economy” (European Commission, 2015). This necessitates a fundamental rethinking of ways we produce and consume, as well as transforming waste into value-added products, and it requires a shift of the entire supply chain—from production to consumption. Kirchherr et al. (2017) defined the CE concept as the shift from end-of-life disposal to reducing, reusing, recycling, and recovering products and materials to achieve simultaneously environmental quality, economic prosperity, and social equity. Similarly, Wu et al. (2014) emphasized that CE systems aim to optimize production levels with minimal use of natural resources, focusing on reusing, recycling, and restoring waste. Previous research affirms the connection between CE and sustainable development (Schoggl et al., 2020), even though there is no clear definition of CE and sustainability (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017).

The principles of CE are commonly explained by the 3R framework, such as reduce, reuse, and recycle (Feng and Yan, 2007; Preston, 2017). The reduce principle focuses on creating less waste (Feng and Yan, 2007). The reuse principle highlights the importance of using products or components that are not waste several times, thereby conserving resources (Castellani et al., 2015). Lastly, the recycle principle involves reprocessing materials to create new products, reducing the amount of waste that would otherwise be discarded (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2008). However, Ranta et al. (2018) argue that a comprehensive approach to the CE is often undermined by excessive focus on recycling, while the reduce and reuse principles still need to be utilized.

D'Amato (2021) highlights that there are 10 R strategies as primary activities of the CE aimed at restructuring the economic system. The strategies “Refuse,” “Rethink,” and “Reduce” emphasize smarter product use and manufacturing (Malooly and Daphne, 2023). “Reuse,” “Repair,” “Refurbish,” “Remanufacture,” and “Repurpose” focus on extending the life of products and their components (Venturini, 2021). Lastly, “Recover” and “Recycle” target the recovery of raw materials or energy from products at the end of their life cycle (Vermeulen et al., 2019).

The linear economic model is characterized by a high consumption of primary raw materials from the environment. Turner et al. (2019) emphasize that the global population currently uses resources equivalent to one and a half planets. Furthermore, inefficiencies occur at every stage of the product lifecycle, with a significant amount of resources being treated as waste from the extraction stage. In extreme cases, waste leakage occurs throughout the production, distribution, and consumption stages, and the products are discarded in landfills at the end of their use. When the product is consumed, outdated, or broken, it becomes waste, leading to a substantial loss of value. This calls for immediate change so that future generations won't suffer.

In contrast, the CE model seeks to minimize using raw materials to produce the same quantity of products by recirculating waste as secondary raw materials and reusing products and/or components. This approach reduces the waste sent for disposal by recovering resources at various stages of the product lifecycle, where legally permitted (Bianchini et al., 2019). Thus, the CE offers a transformative alternative to traditional linear value chains, replacing the take-use-dispose model with circular processes that enable the indefinite use of materials (Stahel, 2016). CE solutions can benefit the environment by lowering material costs and risks, improving product lifecycles, and generating new jobs as the industry shifts to circular practices (The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013).

Existing barriers to transitioning to CE

The focus of this research is on the barriers to adopting CE practices. Scholars have categorized them into different categories. Govindan et al. (2014) identify barriers related to outsourcing, technology, knowledge, and finances, as well as involvement and support barriers. Similarly, Ritzen and Sandstrom (2016) identified five main categories of barriers: financial, structural, operational, attitudinal, and technological. Moreover, Farooque et al. (2019) highlight barriers such as lack of financial resources, limited expertise, technology, and information, organizational culture and management, benefits uncertainty, lack of economies of scale, weak environmental regulations and enforcement, lack of market preference or pressure, and inadequate collaboration from supply chain actors. De Jesus and Mendonca (2018) distinguish barriers between hard barriers (technical, economic, financial, and market) and soft barriers (institutional, regulatory, social, and cultural). Galvão et al. (2018) explore key challenges to CE, such as technology, policy and regulations, finance and economy, performance indicators, customers, and social factors. Additionally, redesigning the CE supply chain has been seen as a key barrier in literature (Bressanelli et al., 2019). Goyal et al. (2018), in their study on CE implementation in a developing country context such as India, identified four primary categories of obstacles: infrastructure-level barriers and challenges, technology barriers and challenges, ineffective policy and social barriers and challenges, and traditional approaches for processing of e-waste in developing countries. Similarly, Kirchherr et al. (2018), through a comprehensive study involving a survey of 208 participants and interviews with 47 experts, classified 15 barriers into four major categories: cultural, market-related, regulatory, and technological constraints.

Based on the literature review, this study focuses on the main barriers to CE adoption in the WBC. Specifically, the research examines the following barriers: added costs, lack of skills and experience, lack of legal and regulatory framework, lack of government subsidies, and lack of consumer demand.

Added costs

Financial barriers represent a significant barrier to shifting to the CE model. Ritzen and Sandstrom (2016) identify challenges related to the time and investments required to change business models, adapt technical aspects, and manage relationships with customers, distributors, suppliers, and production systems. Additionally, firms face high uncertainty related to revenue outcomes. This aligns with findings from other scholars, who emphasize the high initial investment costs and low returns as the most critical barriers to CE adoption (Geissdoerfer et al., 2023; Vatansever et al., 2021; Hopkinson et al., 2018; Rizos et al., 2016). A key contributor to these challenges is restructuring existing facilities that were not originally designed to accommodate CE practices. Agyemang et al. (2019) illustrate this point by testimony of one interviewee, who noted:

“The initiative involves cost due to restructuring a decade-old plant built a decade ago when there was no knowledge of CE.” This highlights the financial and operational challenges of adapting older industrial facilities to meet circular economy standards, which may not have been a priority at the time of construction.

Financial constraints are also associated with environmentally friendly packaging costs, which hinder the adoption of CE (Vatansever et al., 2021). For instance, a study covering 30 countries worldwide highlights a rapid increase in sustainable packaging regulations. These regulations mandate the use of eco-friendly packaging to reduce its negative impact on human health and minimize environmental harm (Cherel-Bonnemaison et al., 2022).

Lack of skills and experience

A significant barrier to adopting CE is the limited knowledge and expertise required to transition from a linear to a circular model. CE is far more than recycling; it necessitates transformative changes in business strategies to integrate it into their operational processes (AlJaber et al., 2023; Melati et al., 2021). There needs to be more familiarity with CE core concepts among individuals working in firms. At the same time, some understand that the overall awareness could be better because of their sustainability-related responsibilities. Holly et al. (2023) highlight the findings in the Austrian survey, where over 60% of respondents from politics, education, and economics reported a need for more information related to the CE concept. Such findings underscore a widespread lack of understanding of this concept, which hinders its adoption and contributes to a slow shift in CE progression (AlJaber et al., 2023; Jaeger and Upadhyay, 2020). To address the challenges to CE transition, skills and capabilities for circularity can be defined as the capacity to reorganize, reroute, transform, shape, and integrate current core competencies with external resources, circular strategies, and complementary assets (Bertassini et al., 2021). However, firms often demonstrate insufficient capacity to drive innovation within the CE framework. To bridge this gap, firms can establish industrial clusters, which would contribute to sharing knowledge and expertise and strengthening strategic standing for CE adoption (Holly et al., 2023).

Ritzen and Sandstrom (2016) highlight resistance to adopting new sustainable business models, which requires a fundamental shift from a traditional product approach to a product-service system orientation. Additionally, there is a need for more skilled employees capable of implementing CE principles (Govindan et al., 2014), and many companies find it costly to hire such professionals to support the CE transition (Agyemang et al., 2019). To address these barriers, firms should develop strategic capabilities to implement CE practices (Sousa-Zomer et al., 2018; Hopkinson et al., 2018). This includes cultivating new organizational competencies, such as team motivation, fostering a supportive organizational culture, and encouraging broad participation in sustainability initiatives(Accenture Strategy, 2014). Also, raising awareness of the economic and environmental benefits of CE among stakeholders is crucial to advancing the production and adoption of circular products(AlJaber et al., 2023).

Lack of legal and regulatory framework

Regulatory barriers encompass the absence of global agreements on material exchange and usage, creating challenges for firms operating within international supply chains (Hartley et al., 2022). For instance, UK policy has “mostly overlooked the upstream impacts of resource extraction... especially when those impacts occur outside UK borders” (Hill, 2015). These barriers extend to regulations that hinder procurement and production processes, further complicating CE implementation (Hartley et al., 2022). Regulatory barriers persist within WB region due to the underdeveloped institutional and regulatory capacities, which hinder effective implementation of CE initiatives. To address these problems, it is necessary to have long-term planning and financial support which would facilitate the integration of CE within firms (Ignjatović et al., 2024).

There is still a lack of adequate policies and regulations specific to circular economy, which results in the absence of standardized processes, unclear information, and insufficient guidance for procurement procedures to follow when reusing components (Häkkinen and Belloni, 2011). Additionally, Roos (2014) emphasizes the complexity of existing regulations, an inadequate legal system, and a weak institutional framework as a significant barrier to CE adoption. The lack of comprehensive regulations hinders achieving a zero-waste society and represents a gap in the CE transition (Mahpour, 2018). The ineffective implementation of environmental legislation and limited government support are barriers to CE implementation (Kayikci et al., 2021). Shams (2020) highlights that policies are crucial in closing resource loops and extending the product lifecycle. However, current regulations primarily focus on recycling, neglecting other essential aspects of CE, such as reuse and remanufacturing, which play an important role in developing sustainable business models.

Lack of government subsidies

A study by Vatansever et al. (2021) identifies the lack of government support as a significant barrier to CE practices. Similarly, other scholars have emphasized the absence of CE incentives as a key impediment (Hart et al., 2019). Government subsidies and unaccounted externalities favoring linear production systems hinder CE implementation (Melati et al., 2021). Rizos et al. (2016) argue that various forms of financial support are crucial for implementing CE principles, for which government support is necessary (Ting et al., 2023). In this context, Shams (2020) suggests that reducing Value Added Tax (VAT) on circular products and decreasing subsidies for products derived from linear economic models is crucial for incentivizing the shift toward CE.

Lack of consumer demand

Consumer demand for sustainable products is a key driver that has influenced firms to shift to CE (Lee, 2016). However, there exists a significant level of risk and uncertainty about the customer demand for sustainable products, as many customers may need to pay more attention to the environmental impact of the goods. While there is extensive literature on consumer awareness of sustainable products, a significant gap often exists between consumers' positive attitudes toward sustainability and their actual purchasing behaviors, which is known as the attitude-behavior gap. It suggests that despite expressing concern for environmental issues, many consumers do not consistently choose sustainable products, due to the higher prices of sustainable goods, limited availability, and purchasing habits. Saha (2021) highlight that the market share of sustainable products remains low despite the fact that a substantial number of consumers' express intentions to buy sustainable products. Similarly, financial constraints can impede the purchasing of sustainable products (Yener et al., 2023). Thus, uncertainty about consistent customer demand for sustainable products persists. Moreover, the cost of environmentally friendly products can be higher due to the upfront investment required for sustainable production practices (Pheifer, 2017). Concerns about product quality, particularly items made from recycled or refurbished materials, further complicate consumer acceptance (Ritzen and Sandstrom, 2016). Vatansever et al. (2021) highlight a lack of consumer awareness, preference, or pressure as a major barrier to transitioning to CE. The low level of consumer awareness about CE principles hinders the implementation of such practices within firms. Traditional consumer preferences for ownership are often driven by factors, such as status signaling, personal identity, and perceived control over products (Astrom and Martin, 2018). However, the CE model emphasizes access over ownership through business models such as product-as-a-service, leasing, and sharing economy initiatives, which promote resource efficiency and extended product life cycles. Thus, consumers may be reluctant to shift toward service-based or shared consumption models (Tukker, 2015; Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012).

Based on the theoretical and empirical evidence, the following hypotheses were formulated.

• H1: Firms reporting added costs as a barrier to transitioning to CE have a higher probability of becoming a more environmentally responsible business.

• H2: Firms reporting a lack of skills and experience as a barrier to transitioning to CE have a higher probability of becoming a more environmentally responsible business.

• H3: Firms reporting a lack of legal and regulatory framework as a barrier to transitioning to CE have a higher probability of becoming a more environmentally responsible business.

• H4: Firms reporting a lack of government subsidies as a barrier to transitioning to CE have a higher probability of becoming a more environmentally responsible business.

• H5: Firms reporting a lack of consumer demand as a barrier to transitioning to CE have a higher probability of becoming a more environmentally responsible business.

Research methodology

Research context

The CE transition in WBC is important, particularly as the region deals with significant environmental challenges and seeks sustainable economic development. The WBC, characterized by high levels of pollution and resource depletion, must shift from traditional linear economic models to more sustainable practices that emphasize resource efficiency, waste reduction, and the regeneration of natural systems (OECD, 2022). This transition is crucial for mitigating climate change impacts and aligns with broader European Union goals, such as those outlined in the European Green Deal. The CE framework allows regional businesses to innovate, enhance competitiveness, and create new jobs while addressing pressing environmental issues (Bregu, 2024). More specifically, strategic documents related to resource efficiency and waste management have been adopted in Serbia. North Macedonia has progressed with drafting a National Waste Management Strategy, which comprise of CE principles. CE principles has been also incorporated in the national strategies in case of Montenegro and in broader environmental and waste management strategies in case of Albania. Bosnia and Herzegovina are in initial stages of developing a national circular economy strategy, while Kosovo has made some progress in aligning environmental policies with EU standards. Indeed, the adoption of CE principles and related strategies varies across WBC, but each of them is demonstrating some progress in advancing with such initiatives (RECONOMY, 2024).

However, several barriers hinder firms in the WBC from fully embracing the principles of CE. Existing research indicates that many firms perceive added costs as a significant obstacle, needing more skills and expertise, insufficient regulatory frameworks, and limited government subsidies (Bregu, 2024). These barriers can prevent companies from investing in sustainable technologies and practices necessary to transition to CE successfully. Understanding these challenges is essential for developing targeted policies that empower firms to adopt circularity. The hypotheses formulated in this study aim to explore these barriers systematically, providing empirical evidence on how they impact firms' environmental responsibility. By investigating these dynamics, this study seeks to offer valuable insights that can inform policy development and enhance the capacity of businesses in the WBC to transition toward more sustainable practices.

Dataset

To evaluate research hypotheses, the study uses a quantitative approach to examine the CE barriers influencing firms in the WBC to become more environmentally responsible businesses. The advantage of the quantitative approach is the ability to include a large sample size to increase the generalizability of the results. In this research study, the sample included 1,200 from within WBC, enhancing generalizability and providing exploratory findings. This research study utilizes data from the Regional Cooperation Council's (RCC) Business Balkan Barometer 2024 database, which was compiled using the Business Opinion Survey and included approximately 200 businesses from each Western Balkan economy. The Balkan Business Opinion Survey 2024 gathered data through interviews with experienced interviewers. CAPI methodology was used in this research, which used translated questionnaires and digital forms for consistent data collection. Furthermore, the entire digital questionnaire was reviewed jointly by project coordinators/economy team leaders and interviewers, emphasizing strict quality control measures and reliable and accurate data. The findings from empirical data were consistent with the literature, which is additional proof of the high validity and reliability of the data for this current research.

Table 1 summarizes the sample distribution by economy and size. The total sample is 1,200 interviewed firms within WBC: Albania (N = 200), Bosnia and Herzegovina (N = 200), Kosovo (N = 200), North Macedonia (N = 200), Montenegro (N = 200), and Serbia (N = 200). In terms of firm size, the distribution is as follows: 59.9% (N = 719) micro-enterprises, 25.4% (N = 305) small enterprises, 12.1% (N = 145) medium enterprises, and 2.6% (N = 31) large enterprises.

Table 1

Table 1. Sample distribution by economy and size.

Dependent and independent variables

In this research study, the binary dependent variable represents the firm's perceived transition to becoming a more environmentally responsible business. The dichotomous variable is coded with a value of 1 if the firm perceives becoming a more environmentally responsible business will influence its business decisions in the next 12 months and a value of 0 if it perceives becoming a more environmentally responsible business will not influence its business decisions in the next 12 months.

The independent variables, also binary, are employed to test the influence of barriers to CE transition within firms in becoming a more environmentally responsible business. These variables are defined as follows:

• Added costs—a dichotomous variable with a value of 1 if added costs are one of the main barriers to shifting toward a circular economy in their line of business and a value of 0 if they are not.

• Lack of skills and experience—a dichotomous variable with a value of 1 if lack of skills and experience is one of the main barriers to shifting toward a circular economy in their line of business and a value of 0 if it is not.

• Lack of legal and regulatory framework—a dichotomous variable with a value of 1 if the lack of legal and regulatory framework is one of the main barriers to shifting toward a circular economy in their line of business and a value of 0 if it is not.

• Lack of government subsidies—a dichotomous variable with a value of 1 if lack of government subsidies is one of the main barriers to shifting toward a circular economy in their line of business and a value of 0 if it is not.

• Lack of consumer demand—a dichotomous variable with a value of 1 if lack of consumer demand is one of the main barriers to shifting toward a circular economy in their line of business and a value of 0 if it is not.

Descriptive statistics

An overview of descriptive statistics is presented, followed by the correlation of variables employed in a multivariate analysis. Subsequently, the discussion focuses on the logistic regression model and the estimated results concerning firms' probability of becoming more environmentally responsible businesses. The descriptive statistics, comprising variables related to CE barriers, are detailed in Table 2.

Table 2

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of dependent and independent variable.

Multicollinearity is tested using collinearity statistics, where the variance inflation factor (VIF) is a reciprocal of tolerance (Table 3). At the tolerance, the value needs to be >0.1, so anything <0.1 indicates a potential multicollinearity problem, while anything >10 for VIFs indicates a possible multicollinearity problem. Thus, VIFs show that the data does not show any significant multicollinearity because none of the VIFs is close to the cut-off threshold of 10. Because of this, all these variables can be initially included within the model (Kleinbaum et al., 2007).

Table 3

Table 3. Multicollinearity test of independent variables.

Logistic model

The study employs a binary logistic regression model to test the proposed theoretical framework, as this approach aligns with the nature of the research question and the dichotomous dependent variable. Logistic regression is well-suited for analyzing categorical or mixed independent variables, providing statistically robust results. By calculating the probability of success vs. failure, the model expresses outcomes as odds ratios, which reveal the likelihood of the predicted event and the strength of association between variables (Ryzhkova, 2015). Data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), a widely recommended correlation and logistic regression analysis tool.

A logistic regression model is applied as a widely recognized method for examining the relationship between a binary dependent variable, such as the probability of becoming a more environmentally responsible business, and a set of independent variables representing barriers to CE transitioning, such as added costs, lack of skills and experience, lack of legal and regulatory framework, lack of government subsidies, and lack of consumer demand. The logistic model is appropriate for predicting a dichotomous variable from a set of predicted variables, showing the independent variables' individual impact on the dependent variable. In line with our hypothesis testing, it includes variables related to barriers to transitioning to CE. Therefore, the logistic regression equation is as follows:

$\begin{array}{l}\text{P}(\text{y }=\text{ environmentally responsible business }|\text{ x})=\\ {\beta }_0+{\beta }_{1}Addedcosts+{\beta }_{2}Lackofskills+\\ {\beta }_{3}Lackoflegalframework+{\beta }_{4}Lackofsubsidies+\\ {\beta }_{5}Lackofconsumerdemand+{\beta }_{6}Firmsize+\\ {\beta }_{7}CEawareness+{\beta }_{8}GreenTransitionimpact+\\ {\beta }_{9}EUmembership+{\epsilon }_i\dots .\end{array}$

Where P is the probability of becoming a more environmentally responsible business. Table 4 presents the results of logit estimates for firms' probability of becoming a more environmentally responsible business.

Table 4

Table 4. Logit estimates.

The first hypothesis examines the firms reporting added costs as barriers to their transition to CE. A positive association exists between added costs as a barrier and the probability of becoming an environmentally sustainable business, with the significance at the 10% level. This suggests weak evidence supporting the hypothesis that firms perceiving added costs as a barrier may be motivated to overcome these barriers, leading to environmental sustainability efforts. Thus, the first hypothesis is supported.

The second hypothesis addresses the lack of skills and experience within firms as a barrier to transitioning to CE. The logit estimates show that lacking skills and experience significantly increases the odds of a firm becoming an environmentally sustainable business. For every one-unit increase in the lack of skills and experience, there is a likelihood of becoming a more environmentally responsible business by a factor of 0.872. This supports H2, indicating that firms facing this barrier may seek ways or resources to transition sustainably.

The third variable examines the lack of legal and regulatory framework as a barrier for firms transitioning to CE. This variable is not statistically significant, with a value of 0.751, higher than the confidence level. Because of its non-significance value, this evidence does not support the hypothesis.

The fourth hypothesis is that the lack of government subsidies is a barrier to CE adoption. This highly significant factor (p < 0.01) strongly supports H4, meaning that firms reporting a lack of government subsidies are more likely to transition. These findings suggest that reducing such barriers increases the chances of becoming an environmentally sustainable business.

The fifth hypothesis explores the lack of consumer demand as a barrier to CE transitioning within firms. This factor is significant at the 5% level; thus, H5 is supported, suggesting firms experiencing this barrier may proactively become environmentally sustainable businesses.

The control variables examined in this study include firm size, CE awareness, the perceived impact of green transition on business, and EU membership. Of these, all, except CE awareness, were statistically significant. Firm size demonstrates a significant positive relationship with the probability of becoming an environmentally sustainable business. This suggests that larger firms, possibly due to greater resources or regulatory pressure on larger entities, are better positioned to adopt environmentally sustainable practices. In contrast, CE awareness is not statistically significant, indicating that awareness of CE principles alone does not predict sustainability transitions. The perceived impact of the green transition on business is a highly significant factor, with firms perceiving a stronger impact of green transition on their business and being more likely to become environmentally sustainable businesses, indicating alignment with perceived benefits. Finally, EU membership significantly increases the probability of firms becoming environmentally sustainable businesses, potentially due to stricter environmental regulations or access to green funding opportunities.

Results and discussion

The principal contribution of the paper is the relationship between perceived barriers to CE and the probability of becoming a more environmentally responsible business within a sample of firms in WBC, an underrepresented demographic in academic studies. The CE barriers found in this study are consistent with those found in the previous literature (Bressanelli et al., 2019; Farooque et al., 2019; Galvão et al., 2018; Govindan et al., 2014), thereby reinforcing the validity of this study's empirical findings.

Research on the relationship between CE barriers and the transition to becoming environmentally responsible businesses has been relatively scarce, particularly in the context of firms in the WBC. The empirical findings align with previous research that found added costs a significant barrier to CE adoption. Similarly, Geissdoerfer et al. (2023) found that high costs and large initial investments are major barriers to a circular business model transformation and that pre-existing investments are only a hindrance throughout the changes. In line with empirical findings, cost, and financial constraints are barriers that hinder the implementation of CE (Kirchherr et al., 2018).

Empirical evidence supports the hypothesis of a relationship between the perception of a lack of skills and experience as a barrier and transition to becoming an environmentally sustainable business. Our research findings align with the study by Agyemang et al. (2019), who found a significant gap in the current knowledge about sustainability practices within firms in the automobile industry, noting that hiring skilled employees to support products developed under the circular model is very expensive. Similarly, the findings of this study align with existing literature, which identifies technical knowledge and expertise as critical barriers to transitioning from linear to CE (Agyemang et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2019; Shahbazi et al., 2016). These studies suggest that expertise in adopting CE is essential for successful implementation.

The findings of this study indicate that the legal and regulatory framework was not a significant factor in influencing the transition to becoming an environmentally sustainable business. Nevertheless, Mangla et al. (2018) highlight that the firms' ability to transition from linear to circular is limited due to government policies' ineffectiveness in supporting CE initiatives. Similar results are also found in a study by Kumar et al. (2019) that perceives inadequate policies and legislation as a big barrier to firms and a lack of effective legislation as a significant barrier by Caldera et al. (2019).

The research findings align with the existing literature on the need for a regulatory framework to incentivize CE adoption (AlJaber et al., 2023; Holly et al., 2023; Kumar et al., 2019). Moreover, firms would be more encouraged to adopt circular practices when providing financial incentives (Shooshtarian et al., 2023). Fiscal incentives through VAT reduction on refurbishment projects can effectively promote CE adoption (Carra and Magdani, 2017).

The empirical data yields significant results supporting the hypothesis that the perception of consumer demand is a barrier to the transition to becoming an environmentally sustainable business. As Ghisellini et al. (2018) suggest, growing market demand for circular products would increase the interest of profit-driven businesses in meeting this demand. However, consistent with empirical findings, Geissdoerfer et al. (2023) identified market barriers, including insufficient customer demand, often restricted by limited social awareness of CE practices. Addressing these barriers requires awareness campaigns to enhance public understanding and acceptance of CE principles. Such initiatives should mitigate negative customer perceptions of reused materials while developing clear standards and regulations for reused resources (AlJaber et al., 2023).

By aligning with existing literature barriers, findings validate the empirical evidence and highlight the importance of policy interventions to facilitate the process toward CE transition within WBC.

Conclusions and implications

The relationship between firms' barriers to transitioning to CE and becoming sustainable businesses has received negligible research attention. This study offers one of the first empirical supports for this relationship, specifically focusing on WBC firms. It provides novel empirical insights that have complemented the current knowledge of the subject matter and enable policymakers to create efficient policies and practitioners to develop sustainable business strategies toward a circular built environment. Also, it is crucial to highlight that this study is limited by the information available in the literature because the debate regarding barriers to transitioning to CE is relatively new. Although relevant CE barriers are identified in the literature, they are rarely empirically based. Next, this study discusses the theory and practical implications of the empirical findings and study limitations that researchers should consider in the future.

Theoretical and practical implications

Given the CE's importance, numerous government initiatives and business commitments have been implemented to promote its adoption, particularly in developed countries (Winans et al., 2017). In contrast, businesses in emerging economies are often at the beginning stages of CE adoption, urging well-developed business strategies to support a smooth transition.

The successful adoption of CE practices relies on the support from the government and policymakers and the provision of financial incentives. Governments should prioritize the development of policies that support diverse circular strategies to accelerate the transformation process toward CE. Key areas include restructuring supply chains, designing sustainable products, and selecting eco-friendly materials. However, such initiatives may increase product prices, which could cause customer resistance. Thus, circular practices should be incentivized by various fiscal incentives, such as subsidies, tax breaks and others.

Governments need to take a critical role in developing regulations and revising existing legal frameworks that support circular initiatives (Bet et al., 2018). This is linked also with infrastructure investment, from public and private sector, for recycling, waste management, and eco-friendly production. Given that the WBC has lower resource productivity than the EU, the CE may be a suitable strategy for the green transition. WBC should define their national strategies for the green transition and develop regulatory framework following the EU standards and laws, which would also attract EU funding sources. Financial incentives, such as subsidies, grants and loans are crucial for firms to overcome the challenges of initial investments in CE adoption. Also, public-private partnerships funding support firms to develop their CE business models. Specialized trainings, workshops and networks are important to increase skills and capabilities related to taking CE initiatives.

For practitioners, firms can enhance CE adoption by forming industrial clusters, fostering networks for sharing knowledge and expertise, and developing sustainable business models to extend product lifecycles. Collaboration is necessary to ensure CE integration in production processes, especially with supply chain partners. This will also lead to job creation in recycling, remanufacturing and waste management sectors Also, to increase consumer purchase of CE products, consumer awareness campaign can assist to reduce skepticism about reused materials.

There is a complex pathway to circularity, and developing CE models is not the concern of a single firm. Instead, a systemic approach that involves actions from policymakers, enterprises, researchers, and consumers should be adopted to ensure effective transformation to drive sustainability.

Limitations and future research

This study is limited as it is focused solely on firms' perceptions of barriers to transitioning to CE, which implies that the information could have been biased, representing only the viewpoints of WBC firms. More empirical data is needed to understand the barriers of firms that have successfully diversified their operations and transformed their current business models to a more sustainable circular model. This study provides cross-sectional analysis, which makes it difficult to assess how firms' barriers to CE adoption evolve over time.

Based on these limitations, avenues for further research are recommended. First, validating and enriching the findings of firms that have tried or transformed the CE model from different industries, sizes, and locations in developed and developing countries is recommended. Also, future research should focus on prioritization of barriers to compare them and put efforts into which ones to try to minimize first. Also, it is important to track firms' transitions over time, using longitudinal approach, to gain a deeper understanding of the long-term effectiveness and challenges of CE. Moreover, future research should be focused on collaborative networks created between stakeholders to streamline the process of CE adoption.

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found at: https://www.rcc.int/balkanbarometer/results/1/business.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval was not required for the studies involving humans because this is a study done by Balkan Barometer. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

LR: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. NJ: Methodology, Software, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. BK: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. LM: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. TK: Visualization, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Abdul Hamid, T. (2020). Urgent need for a circular economy: New Straits Times. Available at: https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2020/04/588010/urgent-need-circular-economy (accessed September 11, 2024).

Google Scholar

Accenture Strategy (2014). Circular Advantage. Innovative Business Models and Technologies to Create Value in a World without Limits to Growth. Available at: https://sharingcitiesalliance.knowledgeowl.com/help/circular-advantage-innovative-business-models-and-technologies-to-create-value-in-a-world-without-limits-to-growth (accessed October 15, 2024).

Google Scholar

Agyemang, M., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Kahn, S. A., Mani, V., Rehman, S. T., Kusi-Sarpong, H., et al. (2019). Drivers and barriers to circular economy implementation: an explorative study in Pakistan's automobile industry. Manag. Decis. 57, 971–994. doi: 10.1108/MD-11-2018-1178

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

AlJaber, A., Martinez-Vazquez, P., and Baniotopoulos, C. (2023). Barriers and Enablers to the adoption of circular economy concept in the building sector: a systematic literature review. Buildings 13:2778. doi: 10.3390/buildings13112778

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Amui, L. B. L., Jabbour, C. J. C., Jabbour, A. B. L., and Kannan, D. (2017). Sustainability as a dynamic capability: a systematic review and future agenda toward a sustainable transition. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 308–322. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.103

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Andersen, M. S. (2007). An introductory note on the environmental economics of the circular economy. Sustain. Sci. 2, 133–140. doi: 10.1007/s11625-006-0013-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Andrews, D. (2015). The circular economy, design thinking and education for sustainability. Local Econ. 30, 305–315.

Google Scholar

Astrom, A., and Martin, H. (2018). Exploring Firm-Level Barriers to The Circular Economy. Master Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Report No. E 2017:129, Swede. Available at: https://odr.chalmers.se/items/af8b2a4e-0ff2-4d55-99be-25f03cf88bf9 (accessed October 29, 2024).

Google Scholar

Balaj, A., and Mahmutaj, L. R. (2023). Barriers and opportunities to circular economy adoption to economic, social, and environmental performance. Sustain. Mediterr. Constr. 18, 39–44.

Google Scholar

Bardhi, F., and Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: the case of car sharing. J. Cons. Res. 39, 881–898. doi: 10.1086/666376

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bertassini, A. C., Ometto, A. R., Severengiz, S., and Gerolamo, M. C. (2021). Circular economy and sustainability: the role of organizational behaviour in the transition journey. Bus. Strat. Environ. 30, 3160–3193. doi: 10.1002/bse.2796

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bet, B., Kas, J., Truijens, D., Lee, S., Broere, J., Leising, E., et al. (2018). Barriers and Best Practices for the Circular Economy. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1765/105039 (accessed September 19, 2024).

Google Scholar

Beuren, F. H., Ferreira, M. G. G., and Miguel, P. A. C. (2013). Product service systems: a literature review on integrated products and services. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 222–231. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.028

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bianchini, A., Rossi, J., and Pellegrin, M. (2019). Overcoming the main barriers of circular economy implementation through a new visualization tool for circular business models. Sustainability 11:6614. doi: 10.3390/su11236614

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Blomsma, F., and Tennant, M. (2020). Circular economy: preserving materials or products? Introducing the resource states framework. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 156:104698. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104698

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boulding, K. (1966). “The economics of the coming spaceship earth,” in Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy, ed. H. Jarrett (Baltimore, MD: Resources for the Future/Johns Hopkins University Press), 3–14.

Google Scholar

Bradford, A. (2020). The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World. Oxford: University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780190088583.001.0001

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bregu, M. (2024). Circular economy strategies can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create hundreds of thousands of jobs and unlock trillion dollars' worth economic opportunity. Regional Cooperation Council. Available at: https://www.rcc.int/news/864/bregu-circular-economy-strategies-can-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-create-hundred-thousands-of-jobs-and-unlock-trillion-dollars-worth-economic-opportunity (accessed October 2, 2024).

Google Scholar

Bressanelli, G., Perona, M., and Saccani, N. (2019). Challenges in supply chain redesign for the circular economy: a literature review and a multiple case study. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57, 7395–7422. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1542176

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Caldera, H. T. S., Desha, C., and Dawes, L. (2019). Evaluating the enablers and barriers for successful implementation of sustainable business practice in ‘lean' SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 218, 575–590. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.239

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carra, G., and Magdani, N. (2017). Circular business models for the built environment. Arup, BAM CE 100, 1–25. Available at: https://circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/sites/default/files/knowledge_-_circular_business-models-for_the_environment.pdf

Google Scholar

Castellani, V., Sala, S., and Mirabella, N. (2015). Beyond the throwaway society: a lifecycle-based assessment of the environmental benefit of reuse. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 11, 373–382. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1614

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Charef, R., Morel, J. C., and Rakhshan, K. (2021). Barriers to implementing the circular economy in the construction industry: a critical review. Sustainability 13:12989. doi: 10.3390/su132312989

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cherel-Bonnemaison, C., Feber, D., Leger, S., Letoffe, A., and Nordigården, D. (2022). Sustainability in Packaging: Global Regulatory Development across 30 Countries. McKinsey: Paris, France. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/paper-forest-products-and-packaging/our-insights/sustainability-in-packaging-global-regulatory-development-across-30-countries (accessed February 2, 2025).

Google Scholar

Circle Economy (2020). The Circularity Gap Report 2020. The Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy (PACE). Available at: https://assets.Website-files.com/5e185aa4d27bcf348400ed82/5e26ead616b6d1d157ff4293_20200120%20-%20CGR%20Global%20-%20Report%20web%20single%20page%20-%20210x297mm%20-%20compressed.pdf (accessed September 2, 2024).

Google Scholar

D'Amato, D. (2021). Sustainability narratives as transformative solution pathways: zooming in on the circular economy. Circ. Econ. Sust. 1, 231–242. doi: 10.1007/s43615-021-00008-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

De Jesus, A., and Mendonca, S. (2018). Lost in transition? Drivers and barriers in the eco-innovation road to the circular economy. Ecol. Econ. 145, 75–89. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

European Commission (2015). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Closing the loop-An EU action plan for the Circular Economy. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8a8ef5e8-99a0-11e5-b3b7-01aa75ed71a1.0012.02/DOC_1andformat=PDF (accessed October 3, 2024).

Google Scholar

Farooque, M., Zhang, A., and Liu, Y. (2019). Barriers to circular food supply chains in China. Supply Chain Manag. 24, 677–696. doi: 10.1108/SCM-10-2018-0345

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Feng, Z., and Yan, N. (2007). Putting a circular economy into practice in China. Sustain. Sci. 2, 95–101. doi: 10.1007/s11625-006-0018-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fischer, A., and Achterberg, E. (2016). Create a financeable circular business in 10 steps. Sustain. Finan. Lab. 2016, 1–47. Available at: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5d26d80e8836af2d12ed1269/5dea753a5293546f4dc60c37_finance-white-paper-20161207-EN.pdf

Google Scholar

Galvão, G. D. A., De Nadae, J., Clemente, D. H., Chinen, G., and De Carvalho, M. M. (2018). Circular economy: overview of barriers. Procedia Cirp. 73, 79–85.

Google Scholar

Geissdoerfer, M., Santa-Maria, T., Kirchherr, J., and Pelzeter, C. (2023). Drivers and barriers for circular business model innovation. Bus. Strat. Environ. 32, 3814–3832. doi: 10.1002/bse.3339

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., and Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy – a new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 757–768. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., and Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 114, 11–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ghisellini, P., Ji, X., Liu, G., and Ulgiati, S. (2018). Evaluating the transition towards cleaner production in the construction and demolition sector of China: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 418–434. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.084

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., and Haq, A. N. (2014). Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 555–568. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.08.018

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Goyal, S., Esposito, M., and Kapoor, A. (2018). Circular economy business models in developing economies: lessons from India on reduce, recycle, and reuse paradigms. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 60, 729–740.

Google Scholar

Groene, H. (2020). What are the disadvantages of the current linear economy? Knowledge Map Circular Economy. Available at: https://kenniskaarten.hetgroenebrein.nl/en/knowledge-map-circular-economy/ce-disadvantages-linear-economy/ (accessed September 2024).

Google Scholar

Häkkinen, T., and Belloni, T. K. (2011). Barriers and drivers for sustainable building. Build. Res. Inf. 39, 239–255. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2011.561948

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hart, J., Adams, K., Giesekam, J., Tingley, D. D., and Pomponia, F. (2019). “Barriers and drivers in a circular economy: the case of the built environment,” in 26th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference. Procedia CIRP, 80. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2018.12.015

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hartley, K., Roosendaal, J., and Kirchherr, J. (2022). Barriers to the circular economy: the case of the Dutch technical and interior textiles industries. J. Ind. Ecol. 26, 477–490. doi: 10.1111/jiec.13196

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hill, J. E. (2015). The circular economy: from waste to resource stewardship, part I. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Waste Resour. Manag. 168, 3–13. doi: 10.1680/warm.14.00003

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Holly, F., Kolar, G., Berger, M., Fink, S., Ogonowski, P., Schlund, S., et al. (2023). Challenges on the way to a circular economy from the perspective of the Austrian manufacturing industry. Front. Sustain. 4:1243374. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2023.1243374

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hopkinson, P., Chen, H. M., Zhou, K., Wong, Y., and Lam, D. (2018). Recovery and re-use of structural products from end-of-life buildings. Proc. Instit. Civil Eng. Eng. Sustain. 172, 119–128. doi: 10.1680/jensu.18.00007

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ignjatović, J., Filipović, S., and Radovanović, M. (2024). Challenges of the green transition for the recovery of the Western Balkans. Energy Sustain. Soc. 14:2. doi: 10.1186/s13705-023-00421-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jaeger, B., and Upadhyay, A. (2020). Understanding barriers to circular economy: cases from the manufacturing industry. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 33, 729–745. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-02-2019-0047

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kayikci, Y., Kazancoglu, Y., Lafci, C., and Gozacan, N. (2021). Exploring barriers to smart and sustainable circular economy: the case of an automotive eco-cluster. J. Clean. Prod. 314:127920. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127920

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J., Huibrechtse Truijens, A., et al. (2018). Barriers to the circular economy: evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecol. Econ. 150, 264–272. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.028

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., and Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221–232. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., and Muller, K. E. (2007). Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. Boston, MA: Duxbury Press.

Google Scholar

Kumar, V., Sezersan, I., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Gonzalez, E. D. R. S., and AL-Shboul, M. A. (2019). Circular economy in the manufacturing sector: benefits, opportunities and barriers. Manag. Decis. 57, 1067–1086. doi: 10.1108/MD-09-2018-1070

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, K. (2016). Modern Consumerism in ASEAN: An Overview. HKTDC Research. Available at: https://research.hktdc.com/en/article/NDkxODU4Mjk4 (accessed October 4, 2024).

Google Scholar

Lucas, P., Kok, M., Nilsson, M., and Alkemade, R. (2014). Integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in the post-2015 development agenda: goal structure, target areas and means of implementation. Sustainability 6, 193–216. doi: 10.3390/su6010193

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lund, R. T., and Hauser, W. M. (2010). “Remanufacturing: an American perspective,” in 5th International Conference on Responsive Manufacturing - Green Manufacturing (ICRM) 1–6. doi: 10.1049/cp.2010.0404

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mahpour, A. (2018). Prioritizing barriers to adopt circular economy in construction and demolition waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 134, 216–227. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.026

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Malooly, L., and Daphne, T. (2023). R-Strategies for a Circular Economy. Available at: https://www.circularise.com/blogs/r-strategies-for-a-circular-economy (accessed September 5, 2024).

Google Scholar

Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S., Mishra, N., Singh, A., Rana, N. P., Dora, M., et al. (2018). Barriers to effective circular supply chain management in a developing country context. Prod. Plan. Control. 29, 551–569. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2018.1449265

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Marino, A., and Pariso, P. (2020). Comparing European countries' performances in the transition towards the Circular Economy. Sci. Total Environ. 729:138142. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138142

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Melati, K., Nikam, J., and Nguyen, P. (2021). Barriers and drivers for enterprises to transition to circular economy, Stockholm Environment Institute. Available at: https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/barriers-drivers-enterprises-circular-economy-sei-brief.pdf (accessed October 9, 2024).

Google Scholar

Mura, M., Longo, M., and Zanni, S. (2020). Circular economy in Italian SMEs: A multi-method study. J. Clean. Prod. 245:118821.

Google Scholar

OECD (2022). Green Transition in the Western Balkans. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/green-transition-in-the-western-balkans.html#:~:text=Launched%20in%202022%20the%20project,Agenda%20for%20the%20Western%20Balkans (accessed September 2024).

Google Scholar

Ormazabal, M., Prieto-Sandoval, V., Puga-Leal, R., and Jaca, C. (2018). Circular economy in Spanish SMEs: challenges and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 185, 157–167.

Google Scholar

Otekenari, D. (2020). Moving beyond take-make-dispose to take-make- use for sustainable economy. Int. J. Sci. Res. 13, 497–516.

Google Scholar

Pheifer, A. G. (2017). Barriers and Enablers to Circular Business Models. Available at: https://www.circulairondernemen.nl/uploads/4f4995c266e00bee8fdb8fb34fbc5c15.pdf (accessed September 14, 2024).

Google Scholar

Prendeville, S., Sanders, C., Sherry, J., and Costa, F. (2014). Circular Economy: Is It Enough. EcoDesign Centre, Wales, 21.

Google Scholar

Preston, F. A. (2017). Global redesign? Shaping the circular economy, energy. Environ. Resour. Gov. 2, 1–20. Available at: https://biblioteca.fundacionicbc.edu.ar/images/d/d7/Bp0312_preston.pdf

Google Scholar

Ranta, V., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Ritala, P., and Mäkinen, S. J. (2018). Exploring institutional drivers and barriers of the circular economy: a cross-regional comparison of China, the US, and Europe. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 135, 70–82. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.017

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

RECONOMY (2024). From Waste to Wealth: The Rise of the Circular Economy in the Western Balkans. Available at: https://www.reconomyprogram.com/knowledge-hub/from-waste-to-wealth-the-rise-of-the-circular-economy-in-the-western-balkans/#:~:text=Despite%20the%20different%20policy%20situations,of%20multidisciplinary%20professions%20and%20skills (accessed November 24, 2024).

Google Scholar

Ritzen, S., and Sandstrom, G. O. (2016). Barriers to the Circular Economy – integration of perspectives and domains. Proc. CIRP. 64, 7–12. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rizos, V., Behrens, A., van der Gaast, W., Hofman, E., Ioannou, A., Kafyeke, T., et al. (2016). Implementation of circular economy business models by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): barriers and enablers. Sustainability 8:1212. doi: 10.3390/su8111212

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Roos, G. (2014). Business model innovation to create and capture resource value in future circular material chains. Resources 3, 248–274. doi: 10.3390/resources3010248

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ryzhkova, N. (2015). Does online collaboration with customers drive innovation performance? J. Serv. Theory and Pract. 25, 327–347.

Google Scholar

Saha, R. (2021). Sustainable consumption: A big gap between consumer attitude and intent? Available at: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/sustainable-consumption-big-gap-between-consumer-attitude-intent#:~:text=The%20consumers%20either%20have%20a,a%20low%20attitude%20towards%20it (accessed February 2, 2025).

Google Scholar

Schoggl, J. P., Stumpf, L., and Baumgartner, R. J. (2020). The narrative of sustainability and circular economy - a longitudinal review of two decades of research. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 163:105073. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105073

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schroeder, P., Anggraeni, K., and Weber, U. (2019). The relevance of circular economy practices to the sustainable development goals. J. Ind. Ecol. 23, 77–95. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12732

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shahbazi, S., Wiktorsson, M., Kurdve, M., Jönsson, C., and Bjelkemyr, M. (2016). Material efficiency in manufacturing: Swedish evidence on potential, barriers and strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 127, 438–450. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.143

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shams, S. (2020). Circular economy policy barriers: An analysis of legislative challenges in white goods and automotive industry within the EU. Master thesis. Available at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1461354/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed September 7, 2024).

Google Scholar

Sheffi, Y. (2018). Balancing Green: When to Embrace Sustainability in a Business (And when Not to). London: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/11596.001.0001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shooshtarian, S., Hosseini, M. R., Kocaturk, T., Arnel, T., and Garofano, N. T. (2023). Circular economy in the Australian AEC industry: investigation of barriers and enablers. Build. Res. Inf. 51, 56–68. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2022.2099788

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sousa-Zomer, T. T., Magalhães, L., Zancul, E., and Cauchick-Miguel, P. A. (2018). Exploring the challenges for circular business implementation in manufacturing companies: an empirical investigation of a pay-per-use service provider. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 135, 3–13. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.033

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stahel, R. W. (2016). The circular economy. Nature 531, 435–438. doi: 10.1038/531435a

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013). Towards a Circular Economy - Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition. Cowes, UK: Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

Google Scholar

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. Off. J. Eur. Union L13, 3–30. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/98/oj/eng

Google Scholar

Ting, L. S., Zailani, S., Sidek, N. Z. M., and Shaharudin, M. R. (2023). Motivators and barriers of circular economy business model adoption and its impact on sustainable production in Malaysia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 26, 17551–17578. doi: 10.1007/s10668-023-03350-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tukker, A. (2015). Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy – A review. J. Clean. Prod. 97, 76–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.049

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Turner, C., Moreno, M., Mondini, L., Salonitis, S., Charnley, F., Tiwari, A., et al. (2019). Sustainable production in a circular economy: a business model for re-distributed manufacturing. Sustainability 11:4291. doi: 10.3390/su11164291

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Turner, R. K., and Pearce, D. W. (1990). The Ethical Foundations of Sustainable Economic Development. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Google Scholar

Vatansever, K., Akarsu, H., and Kazançoglu, Y. (2021). Evaluation of transition barriers to circular economy: a case from the Tourism Industry. Int. J. Mathem. Eng. Manage. Sci. 6, 824–846. doi: 10.33889/IJMEMS.2021.6.3.049

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Venturini, F. (2021). Circular economy and zero waste for environmental education. Semestr. Di Studi e Ricerche Di Geografia 23, 143–161. doi: 10.13133/2784-9643/16954

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vermeulen, W., Witjes, S., and Reike, D. (2019). Circular Economy 3.0 - Solving confusion around new conceptions of circularity by synthesising and re-organising the 3R's concept into a 10R hierarchy. Renewablematter 27. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/2066/230427

Google Scholar

Winans, K., Kendall, A., and Deng, H. (2017). The history and current applications of the circular economy concept. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 68, 825–833. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.123

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, H. Q., Shi, Y., Xia, Q., and Zhu, W. D. (2014). Effectiveness of the policy of circular economy in China: a DEA-based analysis for the period of 11th five-year-plan. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 83, 163–175. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yener, G., Secer, A., and Ghazalian, P. L. (2023). What factors influence consumers to buy green products? An analysis through the motivation–opportunity–ability framework and consumer awareness. Sustainability 15:13872. doi: 10.3390/su151813872

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar