Huang, J; Abadi, M and Yeow, J (2022) Exploring dynamics in construction circular supply chains using a systematic literature review: New supply-push and demand-pull perspectives. In: Tutesigensi, A and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 38th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2022, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
A full transition to Circular Economy (CE) in construction requires a rethinking of its operations from a supply chain viewpoint. The transition to Circular Construction Supply Chains (CCSC) can be discussed from supply-push (SP) and demand-pull (DP) perspectives; however, this understanding is underdeveloped in the literature. The study aims to explore barriers to the transition to CCSC and associated SD/DP countermeasures and investigates whether the current configuration of CCSC is SP- or DP-driven. A systematic review of 81 peer-reviewed articles was conducted. Thirty-seven barriers were identified, combined into nine factors, and further classified into three groups: technical, managerial, and contextual. Countermeasures to these barriers were linked to SP/DP and their level of control (macro, meso, and micro). Findings revealed countermeasures are mainly SP-related and used to create a DP environment. This new "push-to-pull" attribute shows the dynamic nature of CCSC transition that requires greater collaboration of actors at different levels.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | circular economy; circular construction supply chains; barriers to circular supply chains; systematic literature review |
| Index terms: | construction supply chain, circular economy, configuration, systematic literature review, collaboration, dynamics |
| Subjects: | sustainable design, research evaluation and metrics, management, systems engineering, construction logistics |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Research Practice, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Supply Chain Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CE |
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