Otasowie, O K; Clinton, C; Oke, A E and Adekunle, P (2025) Mapping out focus for circular economy business models (cebms) research in construction sector studies: A bibliometric approach. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 23(5), pp. 1404-1422. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Purpose – The circular economy business models (CEBMs) provide ways for firms operating in the construction industry to move from a linear to a circular approach. Thus, this study aims to explore CEBM research within the construction sector to show the focus area of studies, highlighting new areas that require attention. Design/methodology/approach – This study adopted a bibliometric approach, using the Scopus database as the data source. The keywords used for paper extraction from the database were "circular economy business" OR "circular business" AND "model" OR "models" AND "construction industry" OR "building industry". The VOSviewer software was then used to prepare a co-occurrence and co-authorship map based on the bibliographic data gathered. Findings – The study's findings reveal five research clusters in the construction industry. These clusters include circular construction intelligence, modular business modelling, eco-construction, sustainable construction economics and smart energy-efficient buildings. The two most cited scholars had two publications each, while the top journals are the Journal of Cleaner Production and Sustainable Production and Consumption. This study concludes that there is a need for research within the construction sector to focus on CEBMs' archetypes and frameworks. This will enable a smooth transition from linear to circular business models in the sector. Research limitations/implications – The information was gathered from a single database, Scopus; hence, using other databases, including Web of Science, Google Scholar and Dimensions, might produce more articles for examination and, consequently, different findings on the subject under investigation. Practical implications – These findings would assist researchers in considering the areas mentioned, which are yet to receive attention, and, by extension, enhance economic development while maintaining environmental sustainability. Originality/value – This paper made a significant contribution to the body of knowledge by identifying scholars and platforms that have been instrumental in advancing CEBM research and highlighting new areas that require attention in the construction sector.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bibliometric review; business model; circular economy; construction industry; sustainability |
| Index terms: | methodology, mapping, construction sector, consumption, body of knowledge, smart energy, environmental sustainability, publication, economic development, sustainable construction, science, journal, building industry, investigation, archetype, business model, dimension, construction industry, modelling, platform, circular economy, database |
| Subjects: | research dissemination and communication, specialized education, consumer economics, analytical methods, knowledge management, spatial and geospatial analysis, research methods, economic development, digital design, sustainable construction, sustainable design, health safety and environment, business, data collection methods, modelling and simulation, health monitoring assessment and metrics, energy systems, data management, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Education, Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Information Management, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here