From waste to wealth: circular economy and green growth in emerging economies

Abstract

Background:

Publications examining the relationship between the circular economy and green growth have increased markedly; however, the literature remains fragmented regarding how specific circular strategies translate into measurable green growth outcomes, particularly in emerging and developing economies.

Methods:

The study systematically reviews the literature on the circular economy-green growth nexus, focusing on the twelve R- framework, circular business models as implementation pathways, and enabling policy tools/ instruments. A systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses guidelines, synthesizing evidence from 66 peer-reviewed articles on the circular economy and green growth (2011–2024).

Results:

The findings indicate that green growth is strongly supported when circular strategies prioritize upstream prevention and mid-stream life extension, for example, refuse, redesign, repair, refurbishment, and remanufacturing, complemented by business models such as product as service, sharing economy, and industrial symbiosis that reduce material throughput while creating new sources of value. The study also revealed that policy instruments such as extended producer responsibility and green public procurement emerged as key demand-shaping infrastructure-enabling levers that can stabilize reverse flows and de-risk investment.

Conclusion:

The paper advances the conceptual foundation of circular economy-green growth linkages, highlighting implications for emerging economies where informality, financing constraints, and infrastructure gaps shape feasible circular pathways and policy mixes.

Systematic review registration:

https://www.prisma-statement.org/citing-prisma-2020.

1 Introduction

The circular economy (CE) concept has been increasingly gaining prominence among policymakers, academics, the business community, and governments, especially in European Union countries. Over the past few decades, a growing number of publications and journals in this field have emerged (Geng et al., 2012; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; WHO, 2018), particularly in operations management and sustainability-focused journals. The CE, often conceptualized as a regenerative and restorative alternative to the linear ‘take–make–dispose’ model, is increasingly framed as an operational and system level approach aimed at addressing global environmental pollution, resource depletion, and systemic inefficiencies by promoting closed-loop production and consumption systems (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2017; Potting et al., 2017; Merli et al., 2018; Komakech, 2025). These issues tend to be more severe in emerging markets and developing economies due to rapid industrialization, population growth, urbanization, and weak institutional capacity (Geng et al., 2012, 2013; Global Green Growth Institute, 2020; Capasso, 2021).

While CE focuses on operational strategies and resource-loop mechanisms, it is increasingly linked to the broader Green Growth (GG) paradigm, which represents macro-economic development objectives aimed at decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation while promoting social inclusion (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015; OECD, 2011; World Bank, 2012; Schroeder et al., 2019; Komakech, 2025). This effort is often supported by international initiatives, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations General Assembly, UNGA, 2015) and the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015), as well as national CE roadmaps aimed at decoupling growth from environmental damage (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013; European Union, 2015; WHO, 2018; World Bank, 2021; Adamowicz, 2022; Fetting, 2020).

Over the past decade, a growing body of literature ranging from empirical studies on manufacturing, waste management (Zhu et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2023), resource recovery, and food supply chains to conceptual and bibliometric reviews (Merli et al., 2018; Potting et al., 2017; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Santeramo, 2022; Kumar et al., 2024) has enhanced understanding of the CE and GG nexus. This literature suggests that CE can support eco-innovation (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013; Baranova, 2024; Zhang, 2024; Eltayeb, 2025), resource efficiency (Aloini et al., 2020; Wei et al., 2023; European Union, 2015; Komakech et al., 2024), green job creation (United Nations Environment Programme, 2011; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018; Kumar et al., 2024; Komakech et al., 2024), and more inclusive value chains (Wei et al., 2023; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019). Relatedly, business model innovations such as product-service systems, industrial symbiosis, and sharing platforms have been demonstrated to enhance material productivity and reduce environmental impacts (Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018; Dubey et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2024; Bouattour et al., 2025).

However, the empirical evidence remains fragmented and uneven, particularly in emerging and developing economies. Zink and Geyer (2017) noted that evidence remains scarce on how specific circular strategies lead to measurable GG outcomes, such as productivity gains, innovation intensity, and employment creation. Existing research also tends to overemphasize recycling-based interventions, while underestimating the growth potential of higher-order circular strategies such as refuse, redesign, refurbishment, repair, and remanufacturing (Dubey et al., 2019; Komakech, 2025). Furthermore, enabling conditions for scaling circular initiatives, especially governance arrangements and financing mechanisms, remain insufficiently synthesized for resource-constrained contexts, especially in Africa (Schroeder et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2022; Komakech, 2025). Moreover, the CE–GG nexus remains debated and varies across contexts. The current literature shows that “green growth” outcomes are not guaranteed, as absolute decoupling is difficult to achieve globally, and some circular strategies may conflict with growth-focused profit motives and competitive pressures (Bauwens, 2021). Still, EU-focused empirical studies report a positive association between some CE indicators and economic performance, illustrating how results depend on strategy selection, measurement, and context (Radivojević et al., 2024). This mixed evidence underscores the need for a systematic review to clarify which circular strategies promote green growth and under what conditions.

It’s important to note that scale-up also depends on the coherence of policy, governance, and financing supports that enable the diffusion of circular strategies and circular business models (CBMs) beyond pilots. Pandey (2020) emphasizes that circular design for green growth requires coordination among governments, businesses, and civil society, supported by credible mechanisms for implementation, reporting, and transparency. Additionally, Kumar et al. (2023) identified institutional barriers, including unclear definitions, inconsistent laws, and weak alignment between CE legal frameworks and green financing instruments, which constrain circular progress. In this regard, Adamowicz (2022) and Sertyesilisik and Sertyesilisik (2016) emphasize that green growth, green economy and circular economy agendas hinge on coherent policy packages, institutions, and stakeholder involvement rather than on just firm-level actions. These insights point to a clear gap that there is no evidence-based review yet jointly connected to; (i) circular strategies, circular economy business models (CBMs), and policy instruments in ways that are actionable for emerging and developing economy contexts (Kumar et al., 2023; Pandey, 2020).

Against this backdrop, this study systematically maps and synthesizes evidence on the CE-GG nexus, with particular emphasis on the twelve R-framework, circular economy business models (CBMs), and key enabling policy instruments. These objectives translate into the following three research questions: (i) What CE strategies are reviewed in the literature, and how are they connected to green growth outcomes?; (ii) Which circular economy business models (CBM) are identified as implementation pathways for CE strategies?; and (iii) What public policy and regulatory tools support the adoption and scaling of CE strategies and CBMs for green growth, especially within the institutional and market contexts of emerging and developing economies? By integrating empirical evidence and conceptual insights, the review strengthens theoretical understanding of how and under what conditions CE strategies translate into GG outcomes. In practice, it provides guidance to policymakers, industry leaders, and finance professionals on designing and scaling CE initiatives that support sustainable and inclusive growth in emerging markets. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: the next section outlines the methodology, followed by the presentation of findings, a discussion, research contributions, and a conclusion. It proposes a future research agenda on CE strategies and green growth in emerging economies.

2 Methods

The study employs a systematic literature review (SLR) to synthesize existing academic and policy evidence on the CE–GG relationship in emerging economies. A PRISMA 2020 flow diagram is employed to present the SLR, a “transparent and replicable” method for identifying, screening, and synthesizing the literature (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009; Maestrini et al., 2017; Merli et al., 2018; Danese et al., 2020; Komakech et al., 2025). An SLR was selected as an appropriate approach to support sustainability and transition research, given the challenges in the field such as conceptual fragmentation, policy differences, and variation in context, which often lead to evidence synthesis that is less than “systematic or rigorous” (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009; Merli et al., 2018). The four steps in the literature review process are identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion.

The main bibliographic database, Scopus, was searched, yielding 285 records published through 2024. Additionally, the Google Scholar database was searched using the Publish or Perish software, yielding 100 records based on first-hit relevance and citation prominence. Additional searches of 16 records were conducted on websites and portals of major international organizations involved in the CE–GG agenda, including the EU, Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), OECD, WHO, United Nations, World Bank, and MacArthur Foundation, as well as green growth strategies of countries like Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, India, and Mauritius. The search terms used in the bibliographic database included combinations of “circular economy,” “green growth,” “green innovation,” and “sustainable development,” along with terms related to the conceptual, empirical, and policy literature. All 401 records were then reviewed and assessed for eligibility following PRISMA 2020 guidelines (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

2.1 Stage 1: identification

The identification stage aimed to gather as many potentially relevant articles as possible while reducing publication bias. All records from Scopus and Google Scholar were combined into a single dataset. Duplicate records, primarily due to overlaps among Scopus, Google Scholar, and institutional publications, were removed prior to screening. Duplicate removal was done using a combination of reference management software and manual cross-checking, as advised in systematic reviews (Maestrini et al., 2017; Merli et al., 2018; Danese et al., 2020; Komakech et al., 2025). The final dataset consisted of unique records ready for screening. At this stage, 385 articles were identified.

2.2 Stage 2: screening

In the second stage, the 359 remaining records after deduplication proceeded to the screening stage. Screening was conducted using titles, abstracts, keywords, publication types, and subject areas, following standard practices in previous reviews of research in operations and supply chain management (Merli et al., 2018; Danese et al., 2020; Komakech et al., 2024; Komakech et al., 2025). Records that did not meet basic screening criteria were removed, such as those published before 2024, not in English, lacking relevant keywords, not being journal articles, not related to the subject area or source title (inapplicable for policy and institutional records), or outside the scope and focus on CE–GG. As a result, 235 records were excluded for failing to meet the screening criteria, being irrelevant, or being insufficiently related to CE–GG. This left 69 records from the academic stream, which were combined with 16 policy and institutional documents, resulting in a total of 85 reports that moved on to the full-text assessment stage.

2.3 Stage 3: eligibility

The final stage of identification involves a more thorough full-text eligibility review, based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. As shown by Merli et al. (2018) and Mishra et al. (2018), the eligibility process can enhance the methodological rigor and overall quality of the review by ensuring that the selected articles are conceptually, methodologically, and topically aligned with the review’s objectives. In this study, articles were included if they met three criteria: (a) a clear and explicit conceptualization of CE or GG, (b) the study was conducted in an emerging or developing country context, and (c) the article provided evidence or insights into the CE and GG aspects, including business models, institutional arrangements, and sustainable outcomes. Therefore, the researcher excluded studies that were incomplete or unavailable (n = 17) or whose titles or main content did not contain at least one clear and substantive CE–GG keyword or linkage (n = 2), particularly in the main analytical or content sections of the text. A total of 66 articles were included in the review.

2.4 Stage 4: inclusion

The final stage is the inclusion process, which produces the final set of eligible articles for mapping and synthesis in the scoping review. According to Mishra et al. (2018) and Danese et al. (2020), the final inclusion often involves categorizing eligible articles into analytical or thematic groups that best represent their conceptual, empirical, and methodological content. For this study, the 66 selected peer-reviewed articles and grey literature were organized into key themes, including CE and GG, the 12Rs as a conceptual foundation for CE practices, CBMs, and institutional and policy enablers. This approach enables a cumulative and comprehensive assessment of the evidence and knowledge on the topic, facilitating the identification of gaps and outlining future research directions.

3 Results

3.1 The publication trend of CE and GG

The publication trend on CE and GG indicates that this field has evolved gradually from early discussions and debates to more recent empirical and policy-oriented research (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

During the first 5 years (2011–2015), there were few contributions to CE and GG research, averaging 1–3 per year. The initial conceptual work by UNEP (2011), Geng et al. (2012) and Geng et al. (2013) laid the groundwork for understanding the roots of CE in waste management and eco-industrial parks (industrial symbiosis). In this context, industrial symbiosis is often viewed as a networked approach that can provide environmental benefits alongside business competitiveness through coordinated resource exchanges (Chertow and Ehrenfeld, 2012). The field began to grow around 2016–2017, with a peak of eight publications in 2017, including studies that explicitly compare CE and sustainability concepts and provide definitions of CE (e.g., Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2017). This period also marks a shift from viewing CE in the abstract to applying and working with concrete definitions, mainly within the context of business models and the 12Rs. A slight decline in 2018 was followed by stabilization from 2019 to 2021, with increasing activity from 2022 to 2024, reaching nine publications in 2024. During this phase, research on the interface between CE and GG, as well as sustainability, expanded into case studies and conceptual work across different sectors, circular business models (CBMs), circular economy policies and tools (such as EPR and GPP), and industry and regional studies, especially in developing countries and transitioning economies (Geng et al., 2019). More recent studies highlight the urgent need to rapidly integrate the circular economy and green growth, particularly in the context of climate change and the post-COVID-19 recovery.

3.2 The circular economy and green growth nexus

The CE-GG nexus is based on the idea that value retention and closed-loop flows provide an operational pathway for reconciling economic growth with environmental limits. In the industrial ecology tradition, the CE is an “umbrella” framework that organizes a range of strategies to improve resource productivity through repair, reuse, remanufacture, and high-quality recycling, rather than relying solely on end-of-pipe controls (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017; Fetting, 2020; Verdiyeva et al., 2025). This body of work has expanded beyond the narrow 3R interpretations. Studies by Kirchherr et al. (2017, 2023) emphasize systemic change, value maintenance, life extension, and supply chain scope to more clearly connect CE strategies to broader sustainability objectives, including the SDGs. On the other hand, green growth represents an economy-wide development goal aimed at sustaining income and well-being while conserving natural assets and reducing pollution, positioning resource efficiency as the means to that end (Adamowicz, 2022). Accordingly, the literature frames CE as a broad set of operational strategies and mechanisms, whereas GG is positioned as the macroeconomic outcome that these strategies aim to support and achieve.

The CE advances GG through three interconnected channels. First, efficiency and dematerialization are achieved by narrowing, slowing, and closing resource loops through eco-design, reuse, repair, refurbishment, remanufacture, and quality-preserving recycling which enhances resource productivity and reduce waste intensity (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017; Jawahir and Bradley, 2016). European panel evidence indicates that CE-aligned indicators of resource productivity (RP), municipal waste per capita (MWpc), and the recycling rate of municipal waste (RRMW) are positively correlated with GDP per capita, suggesting compatibility between circular efficiency and growth (Radivojević et al., 2024). Second, CE-driven innovation enhances competitiveness by stimulating innovation in products, processes, and business models. Multi-country econometric evidence confirms that CE-related innovation exerts a significant positive effect on GG outcomes (Eltayeb, 2025). Third, the CE promotes structural shifts through eco-industrial parks and industrial symbiosis that reduce joint costs and material dependencies at the meso level (Yuan and Bi, 2006; Geng et al., 2013).

The literature further shows that renewable energy (RE) enhances the CE growth by reducing residual energy demand in circular loops. RE consumption is connected to environmental quality and green economic performance (Wei et al., 2023). However, the CE, RE, and GG are nonlinear and contingent on innovation capacity. Threshold analyses indicate that RE contributes to GG only when green innovation intensity exceeds the critical level (Bouattour et al., 2025; Eltayeb, 2025). At the political economy level, value-chain upgrading in renewable manufacturing feeds back into more ambitious RE policies, with 2–5 years required to stabilize investments in circular infrastructure.

Furthermore, green finance literature revealed persistent bottlenecks, including definitional ambiguity, legal fragmentation/disparities, and a lack of investor appetite, that hinder investments in take-back systems, remanufacturing, organic valorization, and reverse logistics (Kumar et al., 2024). While blended finance, guarantees, and credible benchmarks are proposed to mobilize to mobilize private capital, coordination along supply chains remains equally critical. Environmental cooperation among suppliers and customers, supported by intermediaries and digital information sharing, reduces transaction costs and quality uncertainty (Zhu et al., 2010; Del Giudice et al., 2021; Melles, 2023). Policy instruments such as green public procurement, extended producer responsibility, targeted R&D, and tax incentives help normalize these exchanges and reverse flows.

Measurement is foundational for making CE–GG claims more credible. The RP–MWpc–RRMW indicators are empirically linked to income growth; conventional LCA/MFA approaches may under-represent cross-scale ecological contributions. Energy-based accounting systems have been proposed to capture the environmental “work” embedded in resources and the system value of recycling and recovery within national accounts (Geng et al., 2013). Sector-specific mappings such as food-waste prevention and nutrient cycling, further clarify where circular interventions deliver both environmental and developmental dividends (Schroeder et al., 2019).

The nexus is context-dependent and subject to boundary conditions related to market size, innovation capacity and governance quality (Eicke and Weko, 2022). The Shenzhen C&D landfill disaster illustrates how weak monitoring and ambiguous rules can transform residual management into a systemic risk, reinforcing the need for preventive and hierarchy-aligned policies (Yang et al., 2017). Conceptual debates caution against recycling only interpretations and instead prioritize higher-order R strategies that material utility and growth potential (Kirchherr et al., 2017, 2023; Blomsma and Brennan, 2017). Normative perspectives from post-growth and doughnut economics further emphasize the need to track distributional and well-being outcomes alongside efficiency and GDP (Savini, 2024).

For emerging economies, the CE–GG nexus is most credible when interventions are stacked and sequenced: (i) upstream eco-design and cleaner production embed value-retention; (ii) meso-level industrial symbiosis orchestrate exchanges; (iii) renewables power circular operations and generate policy feedbacks; (iv) digital infrastructures enable traceability and predictive maintenance and (v) green-finance de-risking mobilizes private capital (Jawahir and Bradley, 2016; Yuan and Bi, 2006; Susanty et al., 2020; Eicke and Weko, 2022; Del Giudice et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2024). National strategies in India that bundle CE with renewable energy, green credit, scrappage schemes, and biofuels illustrate how policy scaffolds can articulate the nexus; though outcomes hinge on policy coherence and state capability (Vishnu et al., 2023).

3.3 Core principles/strategies of the circular economy

Conceptualizing each of the “R” strategies as a set of principles, operational levers, and measurable indicators prevents overemphasis on recycling and clarifies the priority of higher-order interventions within the circular hierarchy (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017). By explicitly distinguishing upstream value-prevention strategies such as reuse, repair, refurbishment and remanufacture and positioning recycling and recovery only as residual end-of-pipe options (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015, 2019; Jawahir and Bradley, 2016; Komakech et al., 2024). This layered approach demonstrates how circular interventions operate at various levels of analysis. For example, at the micro level through eco-design, modularity, service-based models, and predictive maintenance; at the meso level through supply chain coordination, industrial symbiosis, and shared reverse-logistics infrastructure; and at the macroeconomic level through resource productivity gains and innovation-driven competitiveness that support green growth outcomes (Radivojević et al., 2024; Kirchherr et al., 2023; Komakech et al., 2024). Linking each strategy to decision relevant indicators such as; repairability indices, modularity scores, resource productivity (RP), municipal waste per capita (MWpc) and recycling quality not only supports empirical assessment but also demonstrates how higher order Rs generate enhanced value retention, cost reductions and productivity improvements compared to downstream options (Jawahir and Bradley, 2016; Radivojević et al., 2024).

Furthermore, this approach addresses the challenges faced by the developing world, such as funding limitations, informal waste markets, and weak regulations, by emphasizing measures that prevent material inflows and extend product lifespans, rather than relying on resource-intensive recycling infrastructure (Kumar et al., 2024; Schroeder et al., 2019). In this context, the following systematic review applies each of the 12Rs, guided by the principle–lever–indicator framework. This method not only demonstrates how these levers can be put into practice but also how their impacts can be measured and compared to support circular-economy and green-growth transitions.

3.3.1 Refuse

Refuse is a first-order circular lever, applied at the demand-creation stage by “refusing” unnecessary products, formats, and material flows before they enter production systems. This approach supports value retention through prevention rather than post-production treatment (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015, 2023). By promoting reduced consumption towards sufficiency, substitution, and service provision, for instance, removing single-use disposables, stock keeping unit (SKU) rationalization, “no-frills” design, refuse, limits the built-in dependence on throughput in production and consumption systems. This directly enables decoupling by preventing embedded energy, labor, and emissions at their source. Focusing on upstream demand formation distinguishes Refuse from recycling-centered circularity strategies by shifting the question from what to do with waste to how to avoid producing it.

Policy measures such as standards, bans, and green public procurement (GPP) operationalize Refuse to guide markets and decision-making regarding sufficiency (e.g., policies to avoid or promote necessary consumption) within national circular-economy pathways. Decision-relevant indicators—including avoided tonnage (kg/year), SKU/material counts, and upstream avoided GHG emissions relative to linear baselines provide measurable and modeled data for Refuse as a prevention-focused approach. These metrics help evaluate its effectiveness in planning dashboards (Radivojević et al., 2024; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019). Therefore, REFUSE sets the boundary condition for the 12Rs hierarchy, reducing the need for subsequent circular measures and maximizing its potential for green growth by excluding material demand at the pre-extraction, processing, logistics, and end-of-life stages.

3.3.2 Rethink

Rethink alters value creation logic by replacing product ownership with access- and performance-based business models and consumption designs. Rethink decouples utility from throughput and embeds circularity into consumption (Konietzko et al., 2020; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). Instead of one-time sales, Rethink promotes leasing, product-as-a-service, and mobility-as-a-service (Del Giudice et al., 2021; Komakech, 2025), stabilizing reverse flows, increasing asset utilization, and redistributing lifecycle risk – all essential for maintaining the value of materials, energy, and labor over multiple cycles. Rethink’s model-level interventions also shift revenue models to encourage firms to enhance durability, reparability, and upgradeability, since firms profit only while their services are in use (Konietzko et al., 2020; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015).

Performance-based contracts, warranties, digital condition monitoring (IoT), and traceability platforms (Del Giudice et al., 2021) facilitate real-time condition assessment and predictive maintenance while reducing information asymmetries and transaction costs in the supply chain. Key decision indicators include utilization rates, lifetime service hours, return rates, and failure incidence. These provide measurable metrics to demonstrate how Rethink enhances circular unit economics and secondary value (Del Giudice et al., 2021; Merli et al., 2018). Therefore, RETHINK is the first value-creation enhancer, as it ensures that circular loops are designed from the outset and integrated into the consumption of products and services.

3.3.3 Redesign (design-for-circularity)

The redesign emphasizes modularity, durability, reparability, and ease of disassembly, enabling high-quality component recovery. It implements the manufacturing 6R principles and shifts CE’s focus upstream (Jawahir and Bradley, 2016; Blomsma and Brennan, 2017). Key tools include repairability scoring, eco-labels, and EPR with design criteria such as mandatory spare parts and standardized fasteners. Important metrics include the repairability index, modularity score (which measures how many shared components exist across variants), component reuse yield (% of parts recoverable at the target grade), and time-to-teardown (metrics linking engineering decisions to end-of-use performance) (Jawahir and Bradley, 2016; Kirchherr et al., 2023). Consequently, REDESIGN serves as the first enabler of the feasibility of all subsequent circular strategies downstream, both technically and economically.

3.3.4 Reduce

Reduce material and energy intensity per service through lightweighting, yield improvement, closed-loop utilities, and process optimization (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017). Firm-level indicators such as material intensity (kg/unit), energy intensity (kWh/unit), water intensity (L/unit), and scrap rates, along with macro-scale resource productivity (RP), and GDP per tonne of domestic material consumption (DMC), measure decoupling in line with CE and efficiency pathways (Radivojević et al., 2024). These metrics should be monitored carefully to prevent efficiency gains from compromising durability (Merli et al., 2018). This implies that REDUCE is a second, complementary lever, transversal to all other Rs, that reinforces REFUSE by lowering the intensity of all inputs across product life cycles.

3.3.5 Reuse

Reuse preserves embodied value with minimal processing and relies on durable product design, source separation, and logistics to enable return, refill, or reuse, such as standardized transport packaging and refillable containers (Kirchherr et al., 2017, 2023). Key enablers include deposit-return schemes, buy-back programs, and standardization, which help reduce cleaning and sorting costs. The leading indicators include the percentage of items reused, the number of cycles per asset, the time between uses, and contamination rates. Cooperation between suppliers and customers in the supply chain consistently supports higher reuse performance (Zhu et al., 2010; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). REUSE is therefore the third R, which keeps materials and products circulating at their highest level of integrity and maximizes product lifespan with limited effort.

3.3.6 Repair

Repair maintains utility through low-intensity interventions supported by local networks, right-to-repair policies, diagnostics, and available spare parts, which are essential to CE’s focus on preserving value (Kirchherr et al., 2023; Jawahir and Bradley, 2016). Indicators include repair turnaround time, component failure rate, the proportion of reparable products in the portfolio, and post-repair return rates. Policy can enhance reparability by mandating access to parts and repair information; companies can benefit from predictive maintenance to reduce recurring failures (Del Giudice et al., 2021). The REPAIR (fourth R) offers stronger circular continuity than REUSE by restoring function earlier in the loop and delaying the need for more intensive circular strategies.

3.3.7 Refurbish

Refurbishment restores both functionality and appearance to electronics, appliances, and furniture for their second life. It requires provenance and condition data, quality protocols, and consumer trust tools such as warranties and grading (Zhu et al., 2010; Merli et al., 2018). Key indicators include refurbishment yield (the percentage of units reaching the target grade), warranty claims per 1,000 units, the increase in residual value compared to the original resale value, and the time to resale. Financing enablers, such as guarantees and buy-back programs, lower risk premiums and help expand certified refurbishment efforts (Kumar et al., 2024). This is the fifth R (REFURBISH), representing the next level of circularity by bridging minor interventions and remanufacturing while also restoring trust in used products.

3.3.8 Remanufacture

Remanufacturing restores used products to their original specifications and is often the most valuable option when design allows for it, such as in the case of standardized modules and accessible cores (Jawahir and Bradley, 2016; Blomsma and Brennan, 2017). Key facilitators include designing for disassembly, core identification and collection systems, and standardized testing procedures. Important metrics include the percentage of remanufactured parts in total output, first-pass yield, unit cost, emissions compared to new products, and warranty equivalence (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). REMANUFACTURE (the sixth R) represents the highest level of technical value retention achievable, restoring a product’s function to as good as new and thus supporting the economic case for CE.

3.3.9 Repurpose

Repurposing involves assigning new functions to components or materials, such as utilizing second-life Electric Vehicle (EV) battery modules for stationary storage or repurposing textile offcuts for insulation. It supports industrial symbiosis and cascading strategies in parks (Yuan and Bi, 2006). This process requires safety standards, compatibility guidelines, and design rules to manage liability. Indicators include the share of outputs repurposed, additional functional lifetime (hours or cycles), and substitution ratios compared to virgin materials; emergy or system-level metrics can also measure ecological benefits beyond just tonnage (Geng et al., 2013). Therefore, the seventh R (REPURPOSE) offers further circular options by giving new functions that maximize the duration of material loops and create new value streams.

3.3.10 Recycle

Recycling processes materials into secondary feedstocks; maintaining quality is essential to avoid down-cycling, so upstream Rs (design, reuse, repair, remanufacture) should be the top priorities (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2017; Komakech et al., 2024). Enablers include source separation, end-of-waste criteria, and secondary-material specifications to improve price discovery and financing. Indicators include RRMW (municipal recycling rate), secondary-content share of products, contamination rates, and price spreads relative to virgin materials; RP trends can provide macro-level confirmation of circular efficiency (Radivojević et al., 2024; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019). It’s important to note that RECYCLE is the eighth R of the last circular lever before waste and is subordinate to all the higher-order 12Rs.

3.3.11 Recover

Recover handles residuals after higher-order resources are utilized, such as anaerobic digestion of organics (biogas + digestate) and waste-to-energy (WtE) processes with strict pretreatment and emissions controls, and is therefore placed lower in the hierarchy to prevent lock-in (Kirchherr et al., 2023). Indicators include net energy recovered (MWh), net GHG impact, and share of residuals treated; outcomes depend on energy mix and governance quality (Apostu et al., 2023; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019). The RECOVER (the ninth R) is even lower in the hierarchy than RECYCLE. Still, it offers a means of addressing unavoidable losses by recovering energy/material value before it is dissipated.

3.3.12 Regenerate

Regenerative agriculture closes biological loops by returning safe organic matter to soils (e.g., compost or digestate), thereby supporting regenerative agriculture and restoring ecosystem services. It also links CE to SDGs related to food, cities, climate, and biodiversity (Schroeder et al., 2019; Melles et al., 2022; Chatzistamoulou and Tyllianakis, 2022). Indicators include nutrients returned (N/P/K per hectare), soil organic carbon, proxies for water retention and quality, and the biogenic share of energy. At the system level, emergy helps evaluate the value of nature’s work in biocircular flows (Geng et al., 2012, 2013; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019). In emerging economies, city-region organics programs often provide health and affordability benefits when connected to food systems (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019). This is the twelfth R (REGENERATE), representing the aspect of closing the biological loop and completing circularity.

The 12Rs implement the goal of industrial ecology to improve resource productivity and maximize material retention, going beyond simple recycling (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2023; Jawahir and Bradley, 2016). Upstream Rs decrease throughput by increasing resource efficiency, while mid-stream life-extension Rs reduce municipal waste per person, and quality-preserving recycling boosts recycling rates. The CE indicators RP, MWpc, and RRMW are empirically positively associated with GDP per capita, indicating a CE and GG pathway (Radivojević et al., 2024). Regenerate completes biological cycles and connects CE to the SDGs through nutrient cycling and ecosystem restoration, while Recover acts as a last resort for residuals (Schroeder et al., 2019; Kirchherr et al., 2023). The broader advantages of the 12Rs are amplified when combined with renewables, innovative eco-design companies, and the development of symbiotic networks (Wei et al., 2023; Eicke and Weko, 2022). Overall, the 12Rs support micro- and meso-level processes such as design, operations, and coordination, which promote green growth. However, success relies on exceeding thresholds for eco-innovation, the quality of finance and governance systems, and the development of reliable metrics that aid policy learning and investment.

3.4 Circular economy business models (CBMS)

Circular Economy Business Models are strategies that companies use to apply the principles and concepts of the circular economy, creating value, environmental benefits, and competitive advantages. As practical implementations of the circular economy, CBMs are operational approaches that move away from the traditional “take–make–dispose” linear business model by integrating circular principles into product design, resource use, efficiency, and customer engagement. This enables companies to preserve the value of materials for longer periods and extend product life cycles. CBMs have garnered increasing attention from scholars and practitioners as essential tools for supporting a system-wide shift toward sustainability, particularly in response to rising resource scarcity and the challenges faced by emerging markets and resource-constrained settings. This section provides a critical review of the main CEBMs and their implications for sustainable development and green growth.

3.4.1 Product–service systems (PSS)

PSS shifts value from transactional ownership to functional and performance-based models (pay-per-use, leasing), while supporting demand reduction through higher asset utilization and longer life cycles. Circularity is maintained through 6R design principles that emphasize durability, reparability, and modularity, as well as reverse logistics and data systems that support condition monitoring and maintenance scheduling (Jawahir and Bradley, 2016). Evidence shows that environmental supply-chain cooperation positively influences the adoption and effectiveness of circular practices—a key requirement for PSS that depend on upstream component management and downstream take-back and logistics (Zhu et al., 2010). Intermediary organizations and clear legal definitions and regulations for PSS are essential to prevent a shift toward “recycling-only” approaches. They are crucial for turning PSS goals into sector-specific contracts, warranties, and service frameworks (Melles et al., 2022, 2023). Green finance tools and risk mitigation strategies can address challenges arising from mismatches between capital expenditure and operating expenditure (e.g., capex-heavy assets, opex-heavy revenues). PSS can expand more easily in markets facing capital constraints (Kumar et al., 2024).

3.4.2 Remanufacturing, repair, and refurbish

Remanufacturing involves restoring used products to like-new performance; repair and refurbishment maintain value earlier in the supply chain. These are higher-value options that reduce material and energy use per unit of service, as shown in updated CE definitions (Kirchherr et al., 2023). Technically, they are supported by 6R design principles, which emphasize modular, standardized components, disassembly, and component interchangeability (Jawahir and Bradley, 2016). Institutionally, they require information sharing and quality standards across supply chains, such as component histories and diagnostics, to manage quality and liability issues (Zhu et al., 2010). Financing remains a challenge for retooling, core inventories, and warranty coverage; blended finance and guarantees can attract private capital where legal definitions and quality standards are clear (Kumar et al., 2024). According to Blomsma and Brennan (2017), remanufacturing aligns with industrial ecology principles that discourage down-cycling. Instead, it aims to maintain materials in the highest possible state of value for as long as possible.

3.4.3 Reuse markets

Reuse markets such as repair hubs, second-hand exchanges, and refurbishment centers are often the first effective CBMs in emerging cities. Effective systems follow a clear hierarchy, including prevention and source separation, expanding repair and refurbishment, quality-preserving recycling, and recovery only as a last resort (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2023). Macro-level evidence links municipal waste management with economic and environmental outcomes through energy structure, capital formation, and emissions, supporting the waste-to-wealth approach when governance and investment are aligned (Apostu et al., 2023). Conversely, governance failures incur high costs (Yang et al., 2017), as exemplified by the Shenzhen C&D (construction and demolition) landfill failure that occurred on December 20, 2015, and the Kiteezi, Kampala-Uganda garbage landslide on August 9, 2024, caused by heavy rainfall that buried homes and livestock. Yang et al. (2017) noted that this was driven by overfilling and poor controls, emphasizing the need for 4R-aligned prevention, monitoring, and legal clarity in rapidly urbanizing areas.

3.4.4 Sharing economy

The sharing economy (peer-to-peer) enhances the utilization of underused assets, supporting PSS by reducing the need for new production. Its circular benefits are maximized when platforms are combined with 6R design, clear liability and quality standards, and data systems that monitor usage, condition, and origin (Jawahir and Bradley, 2016; Del Giudice et al., 2021; Melles, 2023; Adamowicz, 2022). While Melles (2023) and Adamowicz (2022) show that sharing platforms operate across different sectors and jurisdictions, intermediaries and governance (such as standards, procurement criteria, and data rules), it’s essential to prevent rebound effects and ensure increased utilization results in real material and emissions savings.

3.4.5 Industrial symbiosis

These business models coordinate by-product exchanges, utility sharing, and cascading among clustered firms to lower joint costs and risks (Yuan and Bi, 2006). Symbiosis depends on strong coordination intermediaries and shared data on flows, quality, and performance; sometimes, significant investments are required in shared utilities and infrastructure, such as waste management. When policy establishes standards, incentives, and facilitation roles, the adoption of these business models speeds up (Melles, 2023; Geng et al., 2013). These models are especially effective for emerging-economy industrial clusters and special economic zones, where geographic proximity reduces logistics barriers (Zhu et al., 2010).

3.4.6 Circular procurement models

Circular procurement models involve producers’ contractual commitments to take back products and packaging, as well as recover materials, often driven by green public procurement and extended producer responsibility schemes (Mikkola and Randall, 2016; Melles, 2023). Commercially, take-back programs can promote remanufacturing and high-quality recycling streams, requiring reverse logistics networks, digital tracking, and reporting systems for provenance and condition (Del Giudice et al., 2021). Kirchherr et al. (2017, 2023) noted that the model’s circularity is highest when take-back emphasizes reuse, repair, and remanufacturing before recycling and energy recovery.

3.4.7 Reverse logistics models

These are business models that create value by developing capabilities for collecting, sorting, grading, and redistributing used products and materials, as well as digital marketplaces for secondhand parts and materials. They act as the circulatory system of the CE, linking users with repair and refurbishing centers and connecting manufacturers with cores and components (Del Giudice et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2010). In emerging economies, a lack of reliable data and informality can lead to contamination and quality problems; digital platforms that combine data collection, condition analysis, payment, and contracting tools can make reverse logistics assets more viable and scalable (Melles, 2023).

3.4.8 Resource-recovery models

It involves extracting secondary materials from waste streams and industrial by-products, which are then reintegrated as inputs. These include closed-loop recycling (using the same material cycles), upcycling (adding higher value), and industrial symbiosis, where one firm’s by-product becomes another’s feedstock (Yuan and Bi, 2006; Geng et al., 2013). Municipal “waste-to-wealth” systems link resource recovery to economic and environmental benefits, particularly when governance, investment, and energy systems are well coordinated (Apostu et al., 2023). The literature indicates that energy recovery (e.g., incineration-to-energy) ranks lowest in the hierarchy and is employed only when higher-value recovery options have been exhausted (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2023). Poor governance can lead to catastrophic costs, as evidenced by the Shenzhen C&D landfill failure, underscoring the importance of prevention, monitoring, and clear laws (Yang et al., 2017).

3.5 Public-policy instruments to enable green growth

3.5.1 Price- and rule-based environmental policy

Environmental pricing and regulation establish a baseline for GG/CE by internalizing the costs of pollution and resource depletion, and defining acceptable practices. GG frameworks such as the EU Green Deal and the green economy consistently emphasize (i) pricing externalities through taxes and charges, and (ii) standards that preserve natural capital while maintaining welfare—the twin pillars of GG’s core logic (Fetting, 2020; Adamowicz, 2022). From CE’s perspective, regulatory waste hierarchies, landfill limits, and extended producer responsibility (EPR) shift firms from lower-level residual management (“end-of-pipe”) to higher-order R-options, such as refuse, rethink, repair, and remanufacture (Kirchherr et al., 2017, 2023). Failures and risks associated with poor enforcement, such as the Shenzhen C&D landfill, were reportedly caused by overfilling despite controls on bottom ash, due to inadequate subgrade drainage and leaching. The scale of this problem (240,000 tons per year) makes it a residual management issue with no CE or GG effect, but rather a systemic risk to both cities and the environment (Yang et al., 2017). Standards and environmental regulations thus serve as a form of risk governance for GG (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017; Yang et al., 2017).

3.5.2 Renewable-energy (RE) policy

This policy is vital for GG and boosts CE gains by decarbonizing circular operations. Cross-country evidence suggests that higher RE shares are associated with improved environmental quality and stronger green economic performance (Wei et al., 2023). Upgrading value chains in solar and wind manufacturing and innovation correlates with more aggressive RE policies 2–5 years later, creating a reinforcing feedback loop that can help stabilize long-term green investments (Eicke and Weko, 2022). National GG strategies, such as Rwanda’s Green Growth and Climate Resilience Strategy (GGCRS, 2012, 2022); Ethiopia’s Climate Resilient Green Economy Strategy (CRGE, 2020); Uganda’s Green Growth Development Strategy (UGGDS, 2017); Kenya’s Green Economy Strategy and Implementation Plan (GESIP, 2016); Mauritius’s Green Economy Roadmap (GER, 2012); and India’s National Green Hydrogen Mission explicitly combine CE with biofuels, hydrogen, green credit, and vehicle scrappage, emphasizing the interconnectedness of RE policies with circular feedstocks and End-of-Life (EoL) material recovery (UGGDS, 2017; CRGE, 2020; GGCRS, 2012, 2022; GER, 2012; Vishnu et al., 2023). Evidence from regional systems, such as Qinghai, indicates that sustained RE investment is associated with rising GG indices and earlier peaks in carbon emissions, highlighting the macroeconomic benefits of coherent RE policies (Nyangchak, 2024).

3.5.3 Innovation policy

This policy supports R&D, diffusion programs, and technical assistance, acting as a key enabler. Large-N studies show CE innovation significantly increases GG; second, RE’s growth contribution is limited in low-innovation regimes but rises sharply once innovation exceeds a capability threshold (Bouattour et al., 2025; Eltayeb, 2025). Adoption also depends on operational “6R” capabilities (Jawahir and Bradley, 2016) and product design for circularity, such as modularity and reparability. In short, innovation policy underpins the micro-mechanisms (eco-design, process innovation) that make CE a growth-friendly productivity strategy (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017).

3.5.4 Green-finance policy

Financing constraints are a common bottleneck for CE and GG projects, including reverse logistics, refurbishment/remanufacturing plants, organics valorization, and distributed RE generation. A systematic review found that blended finance, guarantees, and credible standards or benchmarks help reduce risk and attract private capital; more explicit legal definitions and taxonomies improve bankability (Kumar et al., 2024). Macro-level studies in high-pollution Asian economies also link green investment to GG, emphasizing the importance of policy-guided capital for scaling transitions (Mo et al., 2023). Country packages that combine green credit with CE/RE projects provide practical models (Vishnu et al., 2023).

3.5.5 Industrial policy

GG is strengthened when policies promote the use of domestic resources in circular and renewable industries. Studies show that upgrading manufacturing and innovation generates policy feedbacks that reinforce RE commitments, creating a positive cycle for CE infrastructure (Eicke and Weko, 2022). At the meso level, eco-industrial parks and industrial symbiosis turn by-products into inputs, lowering joint costs and reducing import dependence (Yuan and Bi, 2006; Geng et al., 2013). Blomsma and Brennan (2017) argue that industrial policies link CE’s resource-efficiency principle to competitiveness and job creation, which are central to GG.

4 Discussion, implications, contributions and limitations

This section interprets the reviewed evidence and clarifies what it implies for CE strategies, green growth outcomes, and implementation conditions, with particular attention to the realities of emerging economies.

4.1 Discussion

This literature review emphasizes that the concept of CE has expanded beyond recycling to encompass principles and business models that promote value retention, system efficiency, and regenerative growth. The 12Rs framework captures this broader view of CE by including many strategies, such as refuse, redesign, reuse, and remanufacture, which can reduce throughput while maintaining the economic value of products throughout their lifespan (Kirchherr et al., 2017, 2023; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Radivojević et al., 2024). Connecting these principles to measurable indicators, such as resource productivity, utilization rates, or repairability indices, can make the practices and effects of CE more explicit to policymakers and better align them with green growth goals (Merli et al., 2018).

The CBMs provide mechanisms at both the organizational and market levels to implement these principles. Product-as-a-service models, closed-loop supply chains, and refurbishment businesses show how companies can gain competitive advantages by decoupling their growth from resource extraction (Dubey et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2024). Industrial symbiosis, in particular, has gained greater attention in the literature as a systemic CBM that manages the exchange of by-products, the sharing of utilities, and the cascading use of resources across firms in an industrial cluster to lower joint costs and risks (Yuan and Bi, 2006; Geng et al., 2013). Empirical research suggests that these models are more likely to succeed and spread in areas with geographic proximity, adequate institutional support, and robust data infrastructure, making them particularly suitable for emerging economies (Zhu et al., 2010; Melles, 2023).

Policy instruments can promote the adoption of CBMs and expand circular strategies, especially focusing on EPR and Green GPP. EPR, in particular, can shift responsibility and accountability onto producers and encourage design for circularity, while generating revenue for the infrastructure required for collection, sorting, and high-quality recycling (Zhu et al., 2010; Dubey et al., 2019). GPP can stimulate demand for remanufactured and refurbished products, establish markets for secondary inputs, and reduce investment risks (Mikkola and Randall, 2016; Kirchherr et al., 2023; OECD, 2024). These policy tools can realign private incentives with public sustainability goals, normalize reverse flows, and unlock private investment and eco-innovation across supply chains.

However, the literature has identified important principles, models, and enablers; it has yet to provide clear insights into CE’s potential contribution to green growth for several reasons. First, the metrics used to evaluate the circularity of products, businesses, and nations remain fragmented and ad hoc, with many studies focusing on material recovery rates rather than broader metrics such as avoided emissions, social value creation, or system-wide efficiency (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017). Second, few empirical studies examine the thresholds and dynamic feedbacks that determine when CE practices begin to lead to economy-wide benefits, such as the decoupling of material use from GDP growth (Radivojević et al., 2024). Third, there are significant mismatches between the context assumed in many models and the realities in many emerging-economy settings, with models designed in advanced economies often performing poorly when applied elsewhere due to gaps in infrastructure, financing, and regulatory capacity (Schroeder et al., 2019).

This review highlights the need for a more robust theoretical foundation to address these challenges, including the Resource-based view (RBV), institutional theory, and perspectives on dynamic capabilities. These frameworks can help explain how firms and governments co-evolve in response to institutional and market forces, thereby adopting circular principles. Additionally, this literature review offers an overview of the principles, models, and enablers of CE as a potential strategy for achieving green growth. Although the evidence suggests that CE, when integrated into well-designed CBMs and supported by a solid policy framework, can reduce throughput and resource extraction while creating value and jobs, its full potential for green growth remains underexplored and methodologically fragmented. A greater focus on context, theory, and collaboration across supply chains, markets, and policy regimes is necessary to realize CE’s transformative potential.

4.2 Implications of circular economy and green growth for emerging economies

The challenge of implementing CE and GG strategies in emerging economies is more strongly shaped by institutional and market conditions than by technical capabilities, thereby affecting material flows, verification processes, and benefit sharing among stakeholders. Global policy discussions highlight circularity as a promising way to boost productivity, jobs, and environmental benefits; however, adopting advanced circular practices successfully depends on system functionality, such as efficient collection and sorting systems, the use of standardized secondary materials, reliable verification methods, and enforcement mechanisms that minimize opportunities for manipulation and ambiguity (Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018; Schroeder et al., 2019; Komakech, 2025).

On the other hand, when informal recovery is common, collection systems break apart, standards for secondary materials are weak or missing, and reverse logistics become costly and inconsistent in quality, making it difficult for companies to source high-quality, legally compliant secondary inputs at scale. As a result, most firms choose low-value recycling or recovery methods not because they are the most strategic, but because they demand less coordination and verification, such as provenance checks, warranties, testing, and fixed take-back agreements (Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018; Schroeder et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2010). These facts indicate that CE–GG strategies in emerging economies should be assessed by identifying which actions can realistically be implemented within current institutional frameworks and by pinpointing the fundamental changes needed today to support higher levels of value retention in the future.

Furthermore, CE–GG wins are most likely to happen early in the transition, when policy actions and firm investments focus on upstream and midstream activities that provide opportunities for value retention within feasibility limits, including refuse, reduce, reuse, repair, and refurbishment. Higher-level options, such as recycling and redesign, face constraints due to institutional gaps and will experience slower adoption until financing conditions and supply capabilities improve. These options also help keep value within the economy with less infrastructure and within denser informal sectors. In many emerging economies, including Uganda, these efforts align with existing repair cultures, SME networks, and the growth of service sectors. However, feasibility should not be used as an excuse for avoiding structural upgrades. To prevent getting stuck in low-value recycling pathways, both governments and ecosystem actors need to build the foundations for high-level circularity at scale, which requires standardized definitions of quality and end-of-waste criteria, skilled labor and diagnostic capacity, testing centers and certification infrastructure, and reliable traceability systems that reduce information gaps and reassure consumers about secondary materials and products (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018; Kirchherr et al., 2023).

Financing challenges exacerbate these obstacles. Many circular business models require significant upfront investments, such as collection and sorting facilities, repair networks, remanufacturing plants, and digital provenance technologies, before recovered materials and components can be sold and recovery value realized. In areas lacking benchmarks, with unclear legal standards, and with underdeveloped risk-transfer tools, private investors view circular investments as risky and prefer pilots over scalable programs (Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018; Kumar et al., 2024). This shows that enabling CE–GG in emerging economies depends as much on risk mitigation as on technical design. Risk-sharing financial tools together with public capital, extended producer responsibility programs that standardize and ensure take-back quantities, and public procurement policies that stimulate demand for circular goods can collectively reduce uncertainty, attract investments, and align efforts among municipalities, informal players, and companies (Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018; Schroeder et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2024).

Finally, the review shows that the benefits of green growth through circularity in emerging economies will become clearer when circular strategies are adopted collectively rather than individually. Regulations focused on designing for circularity, policies that promote collection and sorting, and demand-driven policies can turn pilot projects into large-scale efforts that create circular markets and encourage industrial upgrading (Pandey, 2020; Schroeder et al., 2019). One of the most practical CE–GG pathways for emerging economies is a gradual, step-by-step approach that focuses on achieving early success with feasible, lower-level value-retention strategies while steadily developing the capacity and skills needed to support higher levels of circularity over time.

4.3 Theoretical and practical contributions

This review offers valuable theoretical and practical insights into the body of knowledge on CE, as well as the operations and supply chain management literature.

4.3.1 Theoretical contributions

Theoretically, this review advances CE scholarship by clarifying how the 12Rs hierarchy, circular business models, and enabling policy instruments collectively function as an integrated system of value preservation, rather than as isolated sustainability actions (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2023; Potting et al., 2017). It contributes new insights by distinguishing higher-order value maintenance strategies such as refuse, redesign, repair, refurbishment and remanufacture from lower-order end-of-pipe options (recycling and rediscovery), demonstrating that CE is most effective when developed upstream and midstream, where embedded material, energy, and labor value can be added (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017; Dubey et al., 2019). Additionally, a key theoretical contribution is to demonstrate how CE strategies translate into GG outcomes through mechanisms such as resource productivity gains, cost reduction, innovation, and risk mitigation, thereby bridging conceptual gaps between the CE and GG literatures. The review also contributes theoretically by positioning CE within an established strategic and institutional framework. For instance, the resource-based view (RBV) and dynamic capabilities (DC) theories explain how firms build, protect, and reconfigure circular capabilities, such as modular design, remanufacturing, and service-based models, to sustain advantage (Barney, 1991; Teece et al., 1997). On the other hand, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) institutional theory complements these perspectives by clarifying how regulatory/coercive, normative, and memetic pressures shape firm adoption and scaling of circular practices.

4.3.2 Practical contributions

In practice, the results of this study can be helpful to both managers and policymakers. For managers, the findings indicate that CE strategies can enhance business performance when matched with appropriate business models and supported by ecosystem partnerships. In particular, product-as-a-service, refurbishment, and industrial symbiosis models enable firms to: (a) create new revenue streams through service-based offerings and secondary markets, (b) reduce material and energy costs by extending asset lifecycles; and (c) strengthen resilience to volatile input prices by reducing dependence on virgin resources. These models translate circularity into measurable performance benefits such as lower operating costs, improved resource productivity, and enhanced customer retention when supported by design for circularity, reverse logistics, and traceability tools.

For policymakers, the review identifies specific instruments, such as EPR, GPP, and standardization, as levers to reduce coordination costs, create stable demand for secondary materials, and incentivize eco-innovation across supply chains. Policy mixes that combine regulatory frameworks with financial and infrastructural support can accelerate CE adoption and reduce market uncertainty, enabling firms to scale circular solutions. The study also highlights contextual factors; for instance, in developing economies, the effectiveness of CE interventions depends on institutional capacity, the availability of reverse logistics infrastructure, consumer acceptance, and access to finance. Policymakers, therefore, need to adapt CE policies to local conditions, prioritizing higher-order strategies such as prevention and reuse where recycling infrastructure is weak and leveraging blended finance and public-private partnerships to derisk circular investments.

4.4 Limitations of the study

There are three main limitations to the review. First, the coverage and indexing biases of our retrieval strategy, which focused on Scopus, Google Scholar/Publish or Perish, and selected institutional sources, may lead to the exclusion of relevant regional, non-indexed, or non-English work from our evidence base. Second, including policy and institutional reports and documents is important for the CE and GG agenda; however, variation in overall rigor and reporting standards can pose challenges when comparing this work with peer-reviewed studies. Third, since our synthesis is based on published studies, it cannot establish causal links between specific circular strategies and measurable GG outcomes.

5 Conclusion

This study confirms that circular economy practices provide a strategic approach to promoting green growth by addressing environmental, economic, and social needs simultaneously. Evidence shows that applying the 12R principles, extended producer responsibility, industrial symbiosis, and green procurement helps preserve value, improve efficiency, and strengthen systemic resilience across supply chains. At the micro level, companies realize resource savings, lower costs, and new market opportunities. On the meso and macro levels, circular flows support industrial clustering, job creation, and sustainable development paths. Notably, the study highlights that successful circular strategies rely on supportive institutional structures, clear policies, and financial systems that align incentives with long-term sustainability goals. By situating circular practices within the broader context of green growth, the study concludes that the circular economy is not merely an environmental add-on but a transformative model for reshaping production and consumption systems, enhancing competitiveness, fairness, and ecological health.

Future research should extend beyond descriptive accounts to explore the thresholds and dynamics through which circular economy practices produce measurable green growth results. This includes identifying tipping points in eco-innovation, renewable energy adoption, and design for circularity, as well as evaluating how policies and financial tools, such as green procurement, extended producer responsibility, and blended finance, interact to increase adoption. More focus is also needed on firm- and meso-level capabilities, such as reverse logistics, industrial symbiosis, and digital platforms that enable data-driven coordination. Additionally, strong indicators are essential to measure CE’s role in resource productivity, emissions reduction, and ecosystem recovery in a manner that is practical for policymakers. Importantly, future research should examine inclusivity and just transitions, exploring how CE-driven growth can create jobs, reduce inequality, and improve affordability. Lastly, comparative studies across developed and emerging economies are crucial for understanding contextual pathways and highlighting the institutional, infrastructural, and social factors that support CE in achieving sustainable and equitable growth.

References

• 1

  AdamowiczM. (2022). Green deal, green growth and green economy as a means of support for attaining the sustainable development goals. Sustainability14:5901. doi: 10.3390/su14105901

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AloiniD.DulminR.MininnoV.StefaniniA.ZerbinoP. (2020). Driving the transition to a circular economic model: a systematic review on drivers and critical success factors in circular economy. Sustainability12:10672. doi: 10.3390/su122410672

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  ApostuS. A.GigauriI.PanaitM.Martín-CervantesP. A. (2023). Is Europe on the way to sustainable development? Compatibility of green environment, economic growth, and circular economy issues. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health20:1078. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20021078,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  BaranovaP. (2024). “Supporting green business growth: towards a transformative approach,” in Sustainable and Resilient Global Practices: Advances in Responsiveness and Adaptation (Emerald Publishing Limited), 81–98.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  BarneyJ. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BauwensT. (2021). Are the circular economy and economic growth compatible? A case for post growth circularity. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.175:105852. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105852

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  BlomsmaF.BrennanG. (2017). The emergence of circular economy: a new framing around prolonging resource productivity. J. Ind. Ecol.21, 603–614. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12603

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  BouattourA.GharbiS.KalaiM.HelaliK. (2025). Relationships between green technological innovation, renewable energy, circular economy, and green growth. J. Innov. Knowl.10:100748. doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2025.100748

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  CapassoM. (2021). Degrowth or green growth: a reflection on the recent public discourse in Norway. Sustainability13:698. doi: 10.3390/su13020698

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  ChatzistamoulouN.TyllianakisE. (2022). Green growth & sustainability transition through information. Are the greener better informed? Evidence from European SMEs. J. Environ. Manag.306:114457. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114457,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  ChertowM.EhrenfeldJ. (2012). Organizing Self-Organizing Systems. J. Ind. Ecol.16, 13–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00450.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  CRGE (2020). Ethiopia’s climate resilient green economy (CRGE) strategy (2011–2019) – Implementation Progress assessment report: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Available online at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099431406152240521/pdf/P1711160560c540d50a1ae0261b2c6c4de3.pdf#:~:text=This%20report%20is%20a%20review (Accessed Oct. 12, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  DaneseP.MolinaroM.RomanoP. (2020). Investigating fit in supply chain integration: a systematic literature review on context, practices, performance links. J. Purch. Supply Manag.26:100634. doi: 10.1016/j.pursup.2020.100634

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  Del GiudiceM.ChiericiR.MazzucchelliA.FianoF. (2021). Supply chain management in the era of circular economy: the moderating effect of big data. Int. J. Logist. Manag.32, 337–356. doi: 10.1108/IJLM-03-20200119

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  DenyerD.TranfieldD. (2009). “Producing a systematic review” in The sage handbook of organizational research methods. eds. BuchananD. A.BrymanA. (Sage Publications Ltd), 671–689.

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organization fields. Am. Sociol. Rev.48, 147–160. doi: 10.1515/9780691229270-005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  DubeyR.GunasekaranA.ChildeS. J.PapadopoulosT.HeloP. (2019). Supplier relationship management for circular economy: influence of external pressures and top management commitment. Manag. Decis.57, 767–790. doi: 10.1108/MD-04-2018-0396

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  EickeL.WekoS. (2022). Does green growth foster green policies? Value chain upgrading and feedback mechanisms on renewable energy policies. Energy Policy165:112948. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112948

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013). Towards the Circular Economy: Opportunities for the Consumer Goods Sector. Cowes, UK: Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015). Towards a circular economy: business rationale for an accelerated transition. Available online at: https://kidv.nl/media/rapportages/towards_a_circular_economy.pdf?1.2.1 (Accessed January 24, 2025).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019). Completing the Picture: How the Circular Economy Tackles Climate Change. Available online at: https://content.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/m/3eac8667edd240cc/original/Completing%09the%09picture-How-the-circular-economy-tackles-climate-change.pdf (Accessed January 24, 2025).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2023). The global commitment 2023 Progress report. Available at: https://content.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/m/1b565394a67da8a5/original/The-Global-Commitment-2023-Progress-Report.pdf (Accessed January 24, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  EltayebA. A. S. (2025). Circular economy innovation-renewable energy-green growth nexus under carbon neutrality targets: new insights from Europe. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy15:738. doi: 10.32479/ijeep.19937

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  European Union (2015) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8a8ef5e8-99a0-11e5-b3b7-01aa75ed71a1.0012.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (Accessed January 24, 2025).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  FettingC. (2020). “The European Green Deal”, ESDN Report, December 2020, ESDN Office, Vienna. Available online at: https://www.esdn.eu/fileadmin/ESDN_Reports/ESDN_Report_2_2020.pdf (Accessed November 20, 2023).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  GeissdoerferM.SavagetP.BockenN. M. P.HultinkE. J. (2017). The circular economy: a new sustainability paradigm?J. Clean. Prod.143, 757–768. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  GengY.FuJ.SarkisJ.XueB. (2012). Towards a national circular economy indicator system in China: an evaluation and critical analysis. J. Clean. Prod.23, 216–224. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  GengY.SarkisJ.UlgiatiS.ZhangP. (2013). Measuring China's circular economy. Science339, 1526–1527. doi: 10.1126/science.1227059,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  GengY.SarkisJ.BleischwitzR. (2019). How to globalize the circular economy. Nature565, 153–155.

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  GER (2012). Green Economy Roadmap (GER). Republic of Mauritius. Available online at: https://www.greenfinanceplatform.org/guidance/green-economy-roadmap (Accessed October 12, 2024).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  GESIP (2016). Green Economy Strategy and Implementation Plan 2016–2030. Government of Kenya. Available online at: https://www.greenpolicyplatform.org/sites/default/files/downloads/policydatabase/(KENYA)%20Improving%20Efficiency%20in%20Forestry%20Operations%20nd%20Forest%20Product%20Processing%20in%20Keyna_0.pdf (Accessed September 22, 2024).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  GGCRS (2012). Green Growth and Climate Resilience (GGCR): National Strategy for Climate Change and Low-Carbon Development. The Republic of Rwanda. Available online at: https://www.rema.gov.rw/rema_doc/RGG&CRS%202011/Rwanda%20Green%20Growh%20Strategy%20FINAL%20high%20res.pdf (Accessed October 10, 2024).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  GGCRS (2022). Rwanda Green Growth and Climate Resilience Strategy (GGCRS): National Strategy for Climate Change and Low Carbon Development. The Republic of Rwanda. Available online at: https://www.rema.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/Rwanda_Green_Growth___Climate_Rsilience_Strategy_06102022.pdf (Accessed October 10, 2024).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  Global Green Growth Institute. (2020). Annual Report 2020: Accelerating Climate Ambition and Building Back Better. Available online at: https://gggi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/GGGI-Annual-Report-2020-WEBdoublespreads_210531-2.pdf (Accessed September 22, 2024).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  GovindanK.HasanagicM. (2018). A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: a supply chain perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res.56, 278–311. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1402141

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  JawahirI. S.BradleyR. (2016). Technological elements of circular economy and the principles of 6R-based closed-loop material flow in sustainable manufacturing. Procedia Cirp40, 103–108. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.067

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  KirchherrJ.ReikeD.HekkertM. (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
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  KirchherrJ.YangN. H. N.Schulze-SpüntrupF.HeerinkM. J.HartleyK. (2023). Conceptualizing the circular economy (revisited): an analysis of 221 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.194:107001. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  KomakechR. A. (2025). Circular economy and green growth: enablers, benefits, and implementation challenges. Sustain. Bus. Soc. Emerg. Econ.7, 463–476. doi: 10.26710/sbsee.v7i2.3454

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  KomakechR. A.OmbatiT. O.KikwathaR. W. (2024). Supply chain management, total quality management, and circular economy: a bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci.15:17. doi: 10.15640/jehd.v15n2a3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  KomakechR.A.OmbatiO.T.KikwathaW.R.WainainaG.M. (2025) Resource-based view theory and its applications in supply chain management: a systematic literature reviewManag. Sci. Lett.15232–262. Available online at: https://ijbss.thebrpi.org/journals/Vol_15_2024/23.pdf (Accessed May 1, 2025).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  KonietzkoJ.BockenN.HultinkE. J. (2020). Circular ecosystem innovation: an initial set of principles. J. Clean. Prod.253:119942. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119942

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  KumarB.KumarL.KumarA.KumariR.TagarU.SassanelliC. (2024). Green finance in circular economy: a literature review. Environ. Dev. Sustain.26, 1–41. doi: 10.1007/s10668-023-03361-3,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  KumarA.ThakurA. K.GauravG. K.KlemešJ. J.SandhwarV. K.PantK. K.et al. (2023). A critical review on sustainable hazardous waste management strategies: a step towards a circular economy. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.30, 105030–105055. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-29511-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  MaestriniV.LuzziniD.MaccarroneP.CaniatoF. (2017). Supply chain performance measurement systems: a systematic review and research agenda. Int. J. Prod. Econ.183, 299–315. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.11.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46

  MellesG. (2023). The circular economy transition in Australia: nuanced circular intermediary accounts of mainstream green growth claims. Sustainability15:14160. doi: 10.3390/su151914160

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  MellesG.WölfelC.KrzywinskiJ.OpeskinL. (2022). Expert and diffuse design of a sustainable circular economy in two German circular roadmap projects. Soc. Sci.11:408. doi: 10.3390/socsci11090408

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  MerliR.PreziosiM.AcamporaA. (2018). How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod.178, 703–722. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  MikkolaN.RandallL. (2016) Green growth in Nordic regions: 50 ways to make it happen Nordic Council of Ministers, Nordregio. Available online at: https://archive.nordregio.se/Global/Green%20growth%20in%20Nordic%20regions%200/NordicGreenGrowth-pages.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  MishraD.GunasekaranA.PapadopoulosT.ChildeS. J. (2018). Big data and supply chain management: a review and bibliometric analysis. Ann. Oper. Res.270, 313–336. doi: 10.1007/s10479-016-2236-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  MoY.UllahS.OzturkI. (2023). Green investment and its influence on green growth in high polluted Asian economies: do financial markets and institutions matter?Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja36. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2022.2140302

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  NyangchakN. (2024). Green growth as a pathway toward sustainable development: a systems thinking on the Qinghai-Tibet plateau in China. Sustain. Dev.32, 2153–2175. doi: 10.1002/sd.2770

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  OECD (2011). Towards green growth. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/publications/towards-green-growth-17025#background (Accessed January 20, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  OECD (2024). Harnessing Public Procurement for the Green Transition: Good Practices in OECD Countries. OECD Public Governance Reviews. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  PandeyP. C. (2020). Circular designing and green growth: insights on future of sustainability. Vision24, 113–117. doi: 10.1177/0972262920903904

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  PottingJ.HekkertM. P.WorrellE.HanemaaijerA. (2017) Circular Economy: Measuring Innovation in the Product ChainPBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyThe Hague. Available online at: https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/pbl-2016-circulareconomy-measuring-innovation-in-product-chains-2544.pdf (Accessed January 24, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  RadivojevićV.RađenovićT.DimovskiJ. (2024). The role of circular economy in driving economic growth: evidence from EU countries. SAGE Open14, 1–11. doi: 10.1177/215824402412406

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  SanteramoF. G. (2022). Circular and green economy: the state-of-the-art. Heliyon8:e09297. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09297,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  SaviniF. (2024). Post-growth, degrowth, the doughnut, and circular economy: a short guide for policymakers. J. City Climate Policy Econ.2, 113–123. doi: 10.3138/jccpe-2023-0004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  SchroederP.AnggraeniK.WeberU. (2019). The relevance of circular economy practices to the sustainable development goals. J. Ind. Ecol.23, 77–95. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12732

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  SertyesilisikB.SertyesilisikE. (2016). “Ways of fostering green economy and green growth,” in Sustainable Economic Development: Green Economy and Green Growth, eds. FilhoW. L.PociovalisteanuD. M.AlAminA. Q. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 49–65.

  • Google Scholar

• 62

  SusantyA.TjahjonoB.SulistyaniR. E. (2020). An investigation into circular economy practices in the traditional wooden furniture industry. Prod. Plan. Control31, 1336–1348. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2019.1707322

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  TeeceD. J.PisanoG.ShuenA. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J.18, 509–533. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  UGGDS (2017). The Uganda Green Growth Development Strategy 2017/18–2030/31. The Republic of Uganda. Available online at: https://gggi.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/03/Uganda-Green-Growth-Development-Strategy-20171204.pdf (Accessed September 22, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 65

  UNFCCC (2015). The Paris Agreement. 2025. Available online at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/parisagreement_publication.pdf (Accessed March 13, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  United Nations Environment Programme. (2011). Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. Nairobi: UNEP. Available online at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/126GER_synthesis_en.pdf (Accessed December 30, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  United Nations General Assembly, UNGA (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development (a/RES/70/1): United Nations Available online at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/70/1 (Accessed June 3, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 68

  UNEP (2011). Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication. Nairobi: UNEP. Available online at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/126GER_synthesis_en.pdf (Accessed December 30, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  VerdiyevaP.DadashovaJ.BayramovV.AliyevaR. (2025). Green growth strategies for sustainable economic development. Joint J. Novel Carbon Resour. Sci. Green Asia Strategy1291, 387–398. doi: 10.5109/7342461

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  VishnuS.VictorM. A.ManidaM. (2023). Green growth: India’s strategy for green economy. Int. J. Emerg. Knowl. Stud.2, 199–203.

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  WeiS.JiandongW.SaleemH. (2023). The impact of renewable energy transition, green growth, green trade, and green innovation on environmental quality: evidence from the top 10 green future countries. Front. Environ. Sci.10:1076859. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1076859

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  WHO, (2018). Circular economy and health: opportunities and risks. The Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization. Accessed on Dec. 30, 2024. Available online at: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/342218 (Accessed December 30, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  World Bank. (2012). Inclusive Green Growth: The Pathway to Sustainable Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available online at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/368361468313515918/pdf/691250PUB0Pbl067902B09780821395516.pdf (Accessed January 9, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 74

  World Bank (2021). Green Resilient and Inclusive Development. Available online at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/285171633074966748/pdf/Green-Resilientand-Inclusive-Development.pdf (Accessed December 30, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 75

  YangH.XiaJ.ThompsonJ. R.FlowerR. J. (2017). Urban construction and demolition waste and landfill failure in Shenzhen, China. Waste Manag.63, 393–396. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.026,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  YuanZ.BiJ. (2006). The circular economy: a new development strategy in China. J. Ind. Ecol.10, 1–8. doi: 10.1162/108819806775545321

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  ZhangY. (2024). Circular economy innovations: balancing fossil fuel impact on green economic development. Heliyon10:e36708. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36708,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  ZhouG.ZhuJ.LuoS. (2022). The impact of fintech innovation on green growth in China: mediating effect of green finance. Ecol. Econ.193:107308. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107308

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  ZhuQ.GengY.LaiK. H. (2010). Circular economy practices among Chinese manufacturers varying in environmental-oriented supply chain cooperation and the performance implications. J. Environ. Manag.91, 1324–1331. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.02.013,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  ZinkT.GeyerR. (2017). Circular economy rebound. J. Ind. Ecol.21, 593–602. doi: 10.1111/JIEC.12545

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar