The results of the triangulation in the bibliometric analysis and content analysis are presented below. For the bibliometric analysis, the software VOSviewer and Bibliometrix were used. The former refers to a free software that enables the construction and visualization of large bibliometric maps (van Eck and Waltman 2010). The latter is an open-source software that, in addition to performing bibliometric analyses, also allows for the execution of comprehensive scientific mapping analysis (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017).
Bibliometric analysis
This technique allowed analyzing the data, identifying recurring research themes (Donthu et al. 2021), based on a triangulation approach of two complementary tools: VOSviewer and Bibliometrix. For matrix construction in VOSviewer, text data from document titles and abstracts were used (van Eck and Waltman 2023b). In Bibliometrix, Keywords Plus obtained from the titles of the references cited by each article were used (Aria and Cuccurullo 2023).
VOSviewer
VOSviewer is a tool that allows constructing and visualizing bibliometric maps based on co-occurrence matrices. For this case, the analysis was performed using the map based on text data presented in Fig. 1.
Source: VOSviewer (van Eck and Waltman 2023a).
Through Fig. 1 and grouped into four clusters, it is possible to explore the structure and interconnection of concepts. These clusters graphically identify key themes in the literature. The identified clusters are detailed below in Table 3, along with each of their associated words.
Figure 1 graphically displays the interconnection and convergence of topics related to CE and SI. Meanwhile, Table 3 provides a specific description of the most relevant keywords within each cluster. Research themes are highlighted, focusing on sustainable SI (cluster 1), corporate CE (cluster 2), innovation in sustainable business models (cluster 3), and circular resource management (cluster 4). The thematic overlap suggests coherence in identifying critical research areas within the SD context and reveals the interrelation of different research areas around SI and CE.
Bibliometrix
Bibliometrix is an open-source tool that performs scientific analyses. This analysis was based on the phases proposed by Aria and Cuccurullo (2017), including data import from Scopus and conversion to R format, bibliometric analysis, and matrix construction. Three matrices were constructed, including conceptual structure analysis, thematic map, and research trends.
Conceptual structure analysis
Given that the search equation includes more than two categorical variables, the multiple correspondence analysis technique was used to explore relationships and associations between keyword sets. Through a two-dimensional conceptual structure map, trends around CE and SI are revealed. Figure 2 presents the map that confirms the interconnection and relevance of the clusters shown in Fig. 1.
Source: Bibliometrix (Aria and Cuccurullo 2023). This figure shows how the key terms from the literature are grouped in two dimensions. The percentages reflect the amount of information captured by each dimension regarding the relationships between terms. Dim 1, the horizontal axis, explains 47.23% of the data variability, differentiating concepts such as circular economy (right) and governance and sustainable development (left). Dim 2, the vertical axis, covers 13.62% of the variability, separating topics such as waste management (bottom) and corporate social responsibility (top). The distances between the concepts indicate their degree of interrelation, helping to visualize how different approaches to sustainability, governance, circular economy, and waste management are connected or differentiated in the literature.
The groups confirm the convergence of relevant thematic areas such as SI, economic development, CE, and waste management, identified in the previous analysis (see Fig. 1), and their interconnection. The presence of concepts like sustainable development and corporate social responsibility suggests that current research aims to integrate different perspectives to address environmental and social challenges. The positioning of the clusters in Fig. 2 complements the information provided by VOSviewer and allows for a graphical identification of the relevance and variability of data around the topic under study.
Based on their position and size, the red and violet groups, related to SI and economic development, are more interconnected and have a greater volume of publications, indicating that they are key research areas at the intersection of SI and sustainability. On the other hand, the green and blue groups, associated with CE and waste management, are smaller and more distant, suggesting that, while these are emerging topics, their research has developed independently and does not fully integrate with the corporate and governance approach. This separation reflects a potential research gap, indicating that the integration of CE with SI strategies and governance still has room for development.
The violet group focuses on strategic and governance aspects of SI. The red group highlights environmental responsibility in the corporate sphere. The green group centers on the economic and social aspects of CE. And the blue group focuses on resource management. The separation between corporate and governance topics (on the left) and technical topics related to waste management and CE (on the right) is relevant.
Thematic map
The thematic map of Bibliometrix allows for the identification and visualization of the key topics within a domain through a keyword clustering algorithm (keywords plus). Each topic is represented by a bubble, whose size is proportional to the frequency of the keywords in the group. The location of the bubbles on the map reflects centrality (relevance) and density (degree of development) of each topic, providing a strategic view of its importance and maturity in the field of study. The cut-off points for centrality and density are established using the mean or median of the centrality and density values of the identified topics (Cobo et al. 2011).
Figure 3 presents the thematic map and classifies research themes into quadrants that can be identified clockwise, in motor, basic, emerging or declining, and niche themes. Motor themes represent well-established and highly relevant research areas. Basic themes present high relevance but lower development. Emerging or declining themes show low development and relevance, representing marginal themes. Niche themes show high development but low relevance, indicating limited importance for the field in general (Aria et al. 2021).
Source: Bibliometrix (Aria and Cuccurullo 2023). The cut-off points are based on two dimensions: centrality and density. The X-axis shows the degree of relevance or centrality, that is, the degree of interaction of a group of networks compared to other groups. The Y-axis shows the degree of development or density, measuring a cluster network’s internal strength and is assumed as a measure of the theme’s development (Aria et al. 2021).
The map presented in Fig. 3 confirms the convergence within the thematic structure around CE and SI research and displays the research topics across four quadrants. Key topics, such as corporate social responsibility, are located in the upper-right quadrant, indicating high relevance and density, focused on economic growth, environmental protection, and social well-being. Basic topics, such as sustainability and innovation, are positioned in the lower-right quadrant, representing foundational and widely discussed pillars that reflect relevance and integration across multiple study areas but lack strong internal connections. Emerging or declining topics suggest ongoing interest in fundamental sustainability issues but also indicate areas that may be losing relevance. The presence of the CE concept in this quadrant confirms it as an emerging topic in the literature (see Fig. 4). Finally, niche topics, such as waste management and food waste, located in the upper-left quadrant, reflect high density but low relevance in the field, indicating these are specialized areas.
Source: Own elaboration based on Bibliometrix (Aria and Cuccurullo 2023). Each line represents a term and its cumulative frequency of occurrence (Y-axis) in studies or publications over the years (X-axis).
Research trends
Research trends were also identified. An increase in the number of published documents is observed, suggesting growing interest and attention from the scientific community. For instance, publications on sustainability rose from 0 in 2014 to 196 in 2023, while those on sustainable development increased from 1 to 176 in the same period. Innovation-related studies grew from 0 to 152, and circular economy, initially marginal, reached 36 publications in 2023. Since 2019, research on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has also shown a rapid rise, from 1 publication to 46 in 2023. This confirms that CE and SD are emerging themes and reflects a growing recognition of their importance. Publications related to SD and SDGs could signify renewed commitment to the global SD agenda. The figures associated with sustainability and innovation, basic themes, suggest the need to redouble efforts in these areas and promote more balanced and holistic research. The following section presents graphical information on the cumulative evolution of the occurrence of the key terms detailed in Fig. 4.
Figure 4 shows that, over the years, research on topics related to sustainable development, circular economy, and social innovation has been increasing. This rise reflects the relevance of these terms in academic debates, motivated partly as strategies to address climate change. Since 2020, there has been an acceleration in scientific publications, representing a close connection with global changes in policies related to sustainability, climate change, and the adoption of the SDGs.
Triangulation of VOSviewer and Bibliometrix tools detailed research trends and connections on CE and SI. VOSviewer identified four main word groups related to sustainable SI, corporate CE, innovation in sustainable business models, and circular resource management. These groups are correlated with Bibliometrix’s thematic maps, highlighting group one as basic themes, group two as motor themes, group three as emerging themes, and group four as niche themes. The results underscore the need to promote interdisciplinary collaboration between CE and SI to address SD challenges. Below is the content analysis highlighting relevant aspects of each identified word group.
Content analysis
This analysis presents a contextualization of quantitative results from a deeper understanding of themes presented by VOSviewer and Bibliometrix (Oh et al. 2016; Sánchez et al. 2021). Information was classified according to the authors’ stance on each word group related in the bibliometric analysis, and their viewpoint on key research concepts is exposed. Below is the interpretive text of words associated with sustainable SI, corporate CE, innovation in sustainable business models, and circular resource management.
Sustainable social innovation
This group highlights the importance of innovation and governance in developing sustainable strategies from a social and urban development perspective, focusing on how communities and organizations contribute to sustainability. Authors emphasize the need to incorporate digital technologies (De Felice and Petrillo 2021; Vargas-Merino et al. 2022), as innovation strategies facilitating socio-technical changes and the transition towards sustainability (Melles et al. 2022; Ziegler et al. 2022). Implementing these innovations requires systemic changes supported by appropriate policies (Ghisellini et al. 2016). Consequently, a governance system is required to institutionalize innovation in different scenarios (Sambodo et al. 2023; Sancino et al. 2023). Therefore, an integral approach combining technological innovation with governance is relevant to achieving sustainable SI.
From the social perspective, the cluster highlights the need to generate economic and social value, prioritizing the social dimension as a success factor (Foroudi et al. 2021). To achieve this, different innovative strategies are highlighted, such as need-oriented consumption (Marchesi and Tweed 2021), reconfiguration of social practices, and collaboration between government and businesses (Batle et al. 2018; Foroudi et al. 2021). In this case, integrating organizational and systemic innovation can promote sustainable production and consumption practices, consolidating SI as a tool to transform social practices and foster multisectoral collaboration towards SD (Coscieme et al. 2022).
Moreover, urban development and social economy strategies are relevant in the transition towards sustainability. The maker movement, prosumption, and organized consumption, for example, are SI strategies that empower the community and promote circularity and sustainable urban development (Marchesi and Tweed 2021; Millard et al. 2018). In this regard, social enterprises are key actors for communication, training, and ecological innovation, significantly contributing to SD (Barna et al. 2023; Scaffidi 2022). These initiatives underline the importance of integrating economic activity with social and environmental well-being, promoting a transition to sustainable and resilient models (Katajamäki 2023).
Corporate circular economy
This group stimulates actor participation in digital transformation and eco-innovation oriented towards sustainability in the business context. It has been identified that actor participation (producers and consumers), in using innovative and digital technologies, reduces the circularity gap (De Felice and Petrillo 2021). This strategy, associated with the intelligent sociological cycle (Calisto Friant et al. 2023), also promotes increased economic productivity and sustainable growth (Sánchez Levoso et al. 2020). The result of these strategies not only promotes sustainable economic development but also strengthens collaboration between producers and consumers, emerging as a focus on how businesses can grow and develop sustainably.
In the business context, authors consider CE key to closing resource flows in economic development (Prendeville et al. 2018). However, some companies base their growth on innovative technologies without considering planetary limits (Arai et al. 2023). Thus, implementing CE in the corporate field requires an eco-social innovative approach that generates economic resources and environmental benefits simultaneously (Matrapazi and Zabaniotou 2020; Ortiz Dominguez and Ahmad Bhatti 2022). Industrial symbiosis, for example, seeks to develop sustainable dynamics through the green economy concept (Tapia et al. 2021), promoting economic growth and environmental protection (Mileva-Boshkoska et al. 2018). Another initiative, green technology, is developed by companies to foster innovation in adopting CE practices (Scaffidi 2022). Integrating sustainable practices with the business fabric strengthens the balance between economic growth, environmental preservation, and planet resources.
Innovation in sustainable business models
This group highlights emerging themes relating various key aspects that show how businesses are adopting circular strategies to promote new business models based on design, sustainability, and efficiency. Among the emerging themes, CE stands out as a transformative paradigm (Calisto Friant et al. 2023). Its implementation depends on innovation, technological development, and entrepreneurship (Ghisellini et al. 2016; Korhonen et al. 2018a), promoting systemic changes to create innovative business models leading to sustainable production (Murray et al. 2017). According to the authors, these new business models strengthen CE’s social dimension (Tapia et al. 2021), and are considered an economically viable way to reuse products and materials through renewable resources (Bocken et al. 2016). Innovation in sustainable business models within the CE context seeks economic efficiency and fosters responsible business practices.
Furthermore, according to Suchek et al. (2022) and Barna et al. (2023), new models can be developed from various circular entrepreneurship scenarios, including growing circular SMEs, agricultural startups, social entrepreneurship in CE, and circular entrepreneurship support ecosystems. Their implementation should be based on product design (Bocken et al. 2016), process redesign (Murray et al. 2017), and business model redesign (Ortiz Dominguez and Ahmad Bhatti 2022). In summary, transitioning from linear business models to circular models is promoted by innovative companies through incorporating SI initiatives focused on designing new products, processes, and models (Deniz 2021; Šimelytė and Tvaronavičienė 2022). This transformative paradigm is redefining how businesses perceive and manage resources, promoting economic development harmonized with environmental conservation and social progress.
Circular resource management
This group reflects interest in efficient resource management and waste reduction in the food chain, aligning with CE and sustainability principles. According to Murray et al. (2017), CE is an opportunity to reduce pressure on natural resources and mitigate environmental impacts associated with production and consumption. Its strategies propose a focus on reduction, reuse, and recycling, emphasizing waste management and material optimization (Ghisellini et al. 2016). However, implementing CE should go beyond recycling, prioritizing reuse and adopting cleaner production patterns. Strategies associated with agroecology and community food production are proposed to contribute to efficient natural resource management (Zhao et al. 2023; Ziegler et al. 2022). In summary, CE’s approach is relevant in the food production and supply context, facing practical challenges for businesses (Bocken et al. 2016).
Triangulating bibliometric analysis, with content analysis results, provides a deeper understanding of the literature. While the former offers an overview of the field’s structure and evolution, the latter provides details on how themes are discussed and related. These results map the academic landscape and reveal the need to expand theoretical understanding of concept application. The theories could provide analytical frameworks to guide research and practice and promote conceptual development. Considering the above, theoretical perspectives of SI and CE are presented below.
Theoretical perspectives of social innovation and circular economy
According to Allen et al. (2021) and Foroudi et al. (2021), SI and CE concepts present varied theoretical perspectives applied in different contexts. Some of these theories have been studied by different authors, allowing understanding the conceptual development and application of strategies focused on promoting CE and SI initiatives. Table 4 presents a summary of the most representative theories identified in this review.
Table 4 provides a comprehensive view of the main theories used in research on SI and CE, showing how each approach contributes to the study of human relations, sustainability, and organizational development. Different theoretical perspectives are identified, focusing on areas such as organizational management, social impact, well-being, and economic development, providing a solid framework for addressing current social and environmental issues. However, there is no theoretical perspective that comprehensively addresses the management of initiatives involving both constructs.
Application of theories to the model constructs
The theoretical integration between circular economy and social innovation requires considering how different conceptual frameworks help explain the dimensions analyzed in this study. In the case of governance, institutional theory provides a framework to understand how norms, structures, and processes legitimize or hinder the adoption of circular and social strategies, especially in contexts of normative transition or institutional weakness (Foroudi et al. 2021). Complementarily, territorial development theory allows analyzing the role of local governments and community dynamics in generating participatory frameworks adapted to specific territories. From a broader systemic perspective, the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) contributes a structured understanding of socio-technical change by distinguishing three interrelated levels: niches, regimes, and landscape. This theory helps explain how CE and SI initiatives emerge in protective niches and challenge dominant institutional regimes, offering insights into transitions toward more sustainable and experimental governance models (Geels 2020).
For the stakeholder construct, stakeholder theory and social value theory make it possible to examine how different groups (such as companies, waste pickers, and civil society), interact, negotiate, and influence the design and execution of circular projects with social impact (Allen et al. 2021). Collective action theory also complements this dimension by offering a framework on how individuals and communities collaborate around common goods, such as waste management or equitable access to circular strategies (Janssen 2015). Within this framework, Transformative Social Innovation (TSI) theory introduces the concept of distributed agency—understood as the capacity of actors to collectively transform existing structures through relational processes, collaborative networks, and evolving narratives of change. This perspective supports the analysis of how multi-actor alliances in CE and SI can challenge institutionalized practices and promote structural transformations beyond incremental adjustments (Avelino et al. 2019; Pel et al. 2020).
Regarding design, dynamic capabilities theory and social innovation theory explain how organizations and communities transform business models, processes, and products through learning, co-creation, and redesign oriented toward sustainability (Akter et al. 2023). These theories highlight the role of contextual knowledge and organizational learning in developing creative solutions that integrate economic, social, and environmental dimensions. From a transition logic, both MLP and TSI reinforce the relevance of design as a space where technological innovation and institutional change intersect, recognizing its potential to scale practices from niche initiatives to regime-level adoption.
Finally, the waste hierarchy can be understood through the lens of welfare economics and community psychology. The former allows for evaluating how waste management decisions promote collective well-being and social efficiency, while the latter provides insight into how community participation and ownership strengthen the sustainability of practices such as reduction, reuse, or recycling (Foroudi et al. 2021). These perspectives help understand how practices that may seem operational in nature are in fact embedded with political and social significance.
Taken together, this theoretical articulation allows us to understand how the principles of CE and SI are manifested in concrete dimensions that respond to the challenges of sustainable development. Each construct of the model finds support in diverse theoretical approaches that, when interrelated, offer a more comprehensive vision of social, economic, and environmental transformation processes. This theoretical convergence not only strengthens the analytical framework of the study but also provides a robust foundation for empirically interpreting the synergies and tensions between CE and SI in real-world contexts. Thus, the proposed conceptual model is supported by a theoretical plurality that enriches the relational understanding of the CE-SI link from a systemic change perspective.
Convergences and tensions between theories
The identified theories present a diversity of approaches, which generates both complementarities and analytical tensions in the study of the CE-SI relationship. In terms of complementarity, some theories share a transformative and participatory orientation. For example, theories of social change, social innovation, and collective action all emphasize bottom-up transformation processes and the role of social actors as catalysts of sustainable change. Likewise, organizational theories (dynamic capabilities, organizational learning) allow those processes to be connected with formal structures such as companies or public institutions.
Meanwhile, the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) and Transformative Social Innovation (TSI) also enrich the theoretical landscape. MLP provides a structural view of transitions that highlights the interactions between niche-level innovations (e.g., community-led CE or SI), regime-level institutions, and socio-technical landscapes. This complements bottom-up theories by adding a macro-level lens. In this way, TSI explicitly acknowledges the tension between transformation and co-optation, showing how innovation initiatives may simultaneously challenge and reproduce dominant systems. It thus complements and problematizes theories with an overly managerial or technocratic orientation.
Nevertheless, there are also implicit tensions. For instance, while dynamic capabilities theory and the resource-based view tend to focus on efficiency and competitive advantage (often from a business logic), social value theory and welfare economics introduce ethical, redistributive, and community-based criteria that may conflict with traditional corporate models. These tensions are especially evident in the design of circular business models that seek to balance profitability, social inclusion, and environmental impact.
Recognizing these convergences and tensions strengthens the theoretical framework, rather, it supports the adoption of a critical and context sensitive perspective that acknowledges the need for hybrid approaches to analyze the interaction between CE and SI. This theoretical diversity enriches the understanding of the phenomenon and enables the adaptation of strategies to different institutional, cultural, and territorial contexts.
Reference framework for implementing social innovation and circular economy strategies
The development of the reference framework (Fig. 5) is the result of an integrative process based on three methodological pillars: (1) the bibliometric analysis, which revealed four major conceptual clusters related to sustainable SI, corporate CE, innovation in sustainable business models, and circular resource management; (2) the qualitative content analysis of the most relevant documents within those clusters, which helped extract recurring categories and practices; and (3) a theoretical synthesis that allowed linking those empirical patterns with core constructs proposed in the CE and SI literature. Based on this triangulation, the dimensions of governance, stakeholders, design, and waste hierarchy were identified as critical subconstructs structuring the intersection of CE and SI. These subconstructs not only appeared as frequently co-occurring themes in the literature but also emerged as pivotal elements in institutional and theoretical frameworks associated with systemic sustainability transitions.
Source: Own elaboration. Circles represent constructs. The intersection of constructs indicates common elements. Rectangles indicate variables. Dashed lines represent the integration of topics. Solid lines indicate direct connection. The dashed circle indicates a relationship with systemic change. Arrows outside the circle indicate results.
Implementing CE and SI strategies requires a holistic approach that incorporates multiple, interdependent dimensions. Their integration is not merely operational but conceptual, as the principles of CE and SI interact dynamically to enable systemic change toward more sustainable and socially inclusive economic models. Circular economy contributes with technological and organizational innovations aimed at improving resource efficiency and environmental regeneration, while social innovation brings in participatory, inclusive, and community-led mechanisms that address governance deficits and social inequalities. This interaction fosters hybrid processes where technical solutions are embedded in social realities, and social transformation is enhanced through circular practices. The proposed reference framework (see Fig. 5) reflects this interdependence by recognizing governance, stakeholders, design, and waste hierarchy as key constructs that co-produce social, environmental, and economic benefits. By aligning these constructs through CE–SI convergence, the framework strengthens its explanatory capacity and offers a strategic lens to guide transitions toward inclusive, sustainable circular systems.
Governance
From a governance perspective, a normative framework is established to coordinate actors associated with CE and SI strategies, implementing models according to the context and addressing social problems (Morales and Diemer 2019; Tapia et al. 2021). During the transition towards sustainability, governance models facilitate spaces for debate and capacity development supporting effective policy formulation (Havas et al. 2023). These models are based on systemic interconnection within a quadruple helix framework (Cramer 2020a), emphasizing participation and cooperation among different actors (Eiselein et al. 2023). In this case, Cramer (2020a) proposes managing these models through a systemic intermediary called the support ecosystem by Suchek et al. (2022), managing the entire system. This indicates that effective governance model implementation is relevant to achieving a sustainable and equitable transition in CE and SI.
Combining different governance forms promotes circular innovations and socio-economic and ecological solutions through strategy participation and democratization (Monciardini et al. 2023). This perspective highlights the challenges of coordinating different actors, such as recyclers, who must be managed under a level of institutional complexity (Sancino et al. 2023), playing a fundamental role in waste management governance by developing grassroots social innovations (Gutberlet 2023). These initiatives promote social inclusion of the less favored through eco-social innovations. For example, according to Millard et al. (2018), the maker movement represents an initiative involving SI from the systemic change perspective, contributing to reforming structures, relationships, and governance. However, Maldonado-Mariscal (2023) warns that the intersection between SI and grassroots innovation (GI) can create ambiguity, since SI tends to become institutionalized while GI emerges from community-based and collective dynamics. Recognizing this tension is essential for designing governance frameworks that integrate formal policies with bottom-up practices. In summary, governance models promote actor participation for strategy development.
In this context, governance acts as the articulating axis of the proposed framework, establishing the rules, institutions and processes that make it possible to coordinate actions among the different actors involved (Eiselein et al. 2023). Its interaction with stakeholders is crucial, as it defines the channels of participation and cooperation, establishing conditions for the articulation between companies, governments and communities (Kadyrova and Shapira 2023; Prendeville et al. 2018). Governance also directly influences design approaches by promoting regulations, incentives and standards that guide innovation towards sustainability and social justice criteria (Geissdoerfer et al. 2017; Havas et al. 2023). Finally, it influences the waste hierarchy by determining regulatory and operational priorities for preventing, reducing, reusing or recovering materials (Calisto Friant et al. 2023; Sánchez Levoso et al. 2020). These connections show that governance not only regulates but also enables functional synergies between the subconstructs of the framework, guaranteeing coherence and viability in its implementation.
Stakeholders
The corporate CE cluster relates to society, academia, and business participation in transitioning to CE. Society develops bottom-up initiatives promoting changes in production and consumption; researchers generate scientific knowledge and transfer it to policymakers; and businesses provide economic resources for implementation (Prendeville et al. 2018). According to Ho et al. (2021), this interaction can occur in three forms based on power, efficiency, and competition, each offering varying levels of collaboration and innovation.
Accordingly, generating alliances to identify opportunities from interactions between different actors, including networks and organizational learning, are considered dynamic SI capabilities by Kadyrova and Shapira (2023). In the context of industrial symbiosis, Morales and Diemer (2019) argue that management depends on balancing autonomy, authority, competition, and cooperation. This indicates that different actors’ participation in SI projects based on innovation and co-creation promotes creative innovation, adds value to the product, and offers a social approach to solving problems previously centered on technological solutions (Leal Filho et al. 2022; Parrilla-González and Ortega-Alonso 2021). In summary, different actors’ participation is relevant to generating added value and creative solutions.
Stakeholder participation not only energizes the transition to the circular economy, but also constitutes a strategic component that connects the other subconstructs of the framework. For example, organizational, social and public stakeholders interact in collaborative governance frameworks, helping to shape sustainability-oriented agendas, regulations and practices (Eiselein et al. 2023; Havas et al. 2023). In turn, these interactions generate spaces for co-creation that favor the adoption of user- and context-centered design approaches, which enhances social innovation (Batle et al. 2018). In addition, the involvement of diverse actors—such as cooperatives, recyclers, responsible consumers and SMEs—facilitates the operationalization of the waste hierarchy through concrete practices of reduction, reuse and recovery (D’Adamo et al. 2024; Homrich et al. 2018; Scaffidi 2022). In this way, stakeholders act as critical nodes that link action with structural transformation, integrating the social, environmental and economic dimensions of the proposed framework.
Design
Design, intrinsically related to innovation in sustainable business models, encompasses multiple approaches such as redesign, early design towards optimizing industrial processes, design thinking, and eco-design. Currently mediated by technology, CE focuses on closing cycles through business model and process redesign initiatives (Reike et al. 2018). For example, redesigning the luxury fashion business model suggests a new CE business model (Ortiz Dominguez and Ahmad Bhatti 2022). Early design in product/service manufacturing helps close resource loops to shift from linear to circular (Coscieme et al. 2022; Wu et al. 2023). Design thinking is relevant for connecting technology, people, and government, keeping products within a cycle and promoting sustainability (Batle et al. 2018; Deniz 2021). Eco-design could develop democratic socio-ecological systems, integrating natural cycles with human well-being through eco-innovation (Blomsma and Brennan 2017; Homrich et al. 2018). Integrating design in its multiple facets can transform business models towards CE, promoting sustainability and integrating human and economic well-being.
Integrating SI with CE focused on environmental protection will lead to new socially responsible product and service designs (Batle et al. 2018). This interaction promotes the transition to CE, ensuring profitability and competitiveness in business models (Lieder and Rashid 2016; Melles et al. 2022). Design, along with innovation and actor cooperation, is also key to sustainability managed through CE, and its execution depends on political regulations (Geissdoerfer et al. 2017; Reike et al. 2018), and integration with theories that complement its understanding. This integration creates a solid foundation for sustainable and resilient economic development adapted to contemporary challenges.
Design not only shapes products and services, but also articulates relationships between the other sub-constructs of the framework. First, it depends on governance environments that define regulations, incentives and extended accountability frameworks that guide design decisions towards sustainability and social inclusion (Geissdoerfer et al. 2017; Havas et al. 2023). Second, design is catalyzed by the interaction among stakeholders who bring diverse knowledge, situated experiences and social expectations that nurture co-design processes and contextual innovation (Kadyrova and Shapira 2023; Repo and Matschoss 2020). Third, design directly influences the waste hierarchy, as early decisions in product design determine its durability, reusability, recyclability and repairability (Hobson and Lynch 2016; Homrich et al. 2018). Thus, design operates as a strategic interface that transforms social needs into technical and ecological solutions within the proposed framework.
Waste hierarchy
The waste hierarchy aims to promote a structured framework to guide actions towards more sustainable resource management, involving circular business models, their inherent actions, and actor interaction (Homrich et al. 2018). This framework promotes sustainability through reducing, reusing, and recycling (3R) materials and extends to recovery, repair, and remanufacturing to respect planetary limits and maintain an anthropocentric focus (Calisto Friant et al. 2023). It is complemented by the sustainability pyramid promoting the 3R before design to achieve zero waste (Deniz 2021). Integrating the waste hierarchy into industrial processes allows sustainable resource management and promotes a responsible and efficient CE.
In the context of circular resource management, the waste hierarchy stands out for its relevance in transforming materials and energy. For example, models based on redesign, including the “R” of rescuing materials, promote sustainable SI (Ortiz Dominguez and Ahmad Bhatti 2022). Actor interaction, such as green technology companies (Scaffidi 2022), activists (Vanhuyse et al. 2021), network-connected companies (Mileva-Boshkoska et al. 2018), responsible consumers (Kirchherr et al. 2017), SMEs (Morales and Diemer 2019), innovation co-creators (Havas et al. 2023), among others, is key to fostering innovation in waste management processes, generating positive impacts on SD (Scaffidi 2022). Industrial symbiosis also provides a framework for waste regulation and management, reinforcing waste hierarchy implementation in circular business models (Mileva-Boshkoska et al. 2018). However, interaction among these actors is often marked by power relationships, limiting collaboration and innovation in practices related to the waste hierarchy (Ho et al. 2021; Vanhuyse et al. 2021). Overcoming power barriers and fostering actor participation maximizes the waste hierarchy’s positive impact on circular resource management.
The waste hierarchy, in addition to being a technical guide for materials management, reflects the systemic interaction between the other sub-constructs of the framework. On the one hand, its effective implementation depends on governance structures that normatively prioritize prevention and reuse, allocating appropriate resources and incentives (Calisto Friant et al. 2023; Eiselein et al. 2023). On the other hand, it requires the active participation of stakeholders, such as recyclers, businesses, governments and citizens, who operationalize these priorities through everyday practices, collaborative networks and social innovation (Kirchherr et al. 2017; Scaffidi 2022; Vanhuyse et al. 2021). Likewise, design plays a determining role, since the decisions taken in the initial phases of the product life cycle have a direct impact on the possibility of reducing waste or facilitating its recovery (Deniz 2021; Hobson and Lynch 2016). Together, these interactions show that the waste hierarchy not only guides action, but is configured as an integrating node of systemic change towards sustainability.
Table 5 summarizes the key aspects of each subconstruct:
The presented framework articulates the intersection between CE and SI through four key dimensions: governance, stakeholders, design, and waste hierarchy. These dimensions interact dynamically: governance sets the normative and institutional conditions for actors to cooperate; these actors, through co-creation processes, drive context-sensitive design solutions; and such solutions, by considering prevention, reuse, and recovery criteria, directly influence the waste hierarchy. This systematic approach can be applied by governments in formulating inclusive policies; by companies, in redesigning sustainable business models; and by social enterprises, in fostering community participation in CE processes. Its implementation facilitates a structured and phased transition toward CE and SI, in line with SD principles. Its applicability is conditioned by two critical variables: the type of actor responsible for its execution and the context in which it is implemented. This flexibility ensures its ability to adapt to the specificities of each actor and environment, optimizing its effectiveness in different sectors and scenarios.
