This study aims to clarify and systematize the conceptual, theoretical and methodological foundations of three key consumer behaviors, namely pro-environmental behavior (PEB), sustainable consumption behavior (SCB) and circular behavior (CB), which are critical for advancing sustainability transitions.
A scoping literature review was conducted using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol across three major databases (Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar), and the final sample included 258 academic papers published from 2019 to 2025. The selected literature was analyzed through the theory–context–characteristics–methods (TCCM) framework to identify conceptual definitions, theoretical models, behavioral determinants and methodological approaches.
The main findings indicate that while PEB, SCB and CB share a common characteristic such as the consumer's conscious intention to reduce environmental impact, there are differences in scope and emphasis. PEB includes activism and public engagement, SCB focuses on consumption and its social dimensions and CB emphasizes consumer acceptance of circular innovations.
Future research should expand the scope of analysis to include grey literature, adopt longitudinal and experimental designs to validate behavioral models and systematically examine the role of artificial intelligence in shaping sustainability behaviors.
This is the first study to conduct a comparative scoping review of PEB, SCB and CB using the TCCM framework. It offers a structured synthesis that resolves terminological ambiguities, maps theoretical evolution and identifies gaps in measurement and intervention research.
1. Introduction
Achieving sustainability transitions requires not only technological innovation and regulatory reform but also substantial changes in consumer behavior. Global decarbonization roadmaps indicate that a significant share (about 55%) of the greenhouse gas emission reductions needed to achieve net-zero targets by 2050 must stem from shifts in consumption patterns, including energy use, mobility, food choices and material efficiency (Costa, Benitez, Newman, Gardner, & Bellone, 2022; Almulhim & Abubakar, 2021; De Fano, Schena, & Russo, 2022; Kristoffersen, Mikalef, Blomsma, & Li, 2021). Responsible consumption is therefore central to the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 12 and to the broader transition toward circular economy systems (Transforming our World, 2015; Bigliardi, Filippelli, & Quinto, 2022).
In response, academic research on sustainability-related consumer behavior has expanded rapidly over the past decade. However, this body of literature has evolved along partially overlapping conceptual streams, most prominently pro-environmental behavior (PEB), sustainable consumption behavior (SCB) and circular behavior (CB). Although these terms are frequently used interchangeably, they differ in theoretical roots, scope and policy implications.
PEB traditionally refers to actions that reduce environmental harm, encompassing private practices and public engagement (Stern, 2000). SCB focuses on consumption decisions across the product life cycle and often incorporates social responsibility and long-term welfare considerations (Lorek & Fuchs, 2013). CB, grounded in circular economy principles, emphasizes closing material loops through reuse, repair, remanufacturing, sharing and the adoption of circular business models (Geissdoerfer, Savaget, Bocken, & Hultink, 2017; Kirchherr, Reike, & Hekkert, 2017; Reike, Vermeulen, & Witjes, 2018).
Recent research reveals growing conceptual fragmentation. Studies conflate green behavior, responsible consumption, sustainable lifestyles and circular practices without clearly delineating their boundaries (Parajuly, Fitzpatrick, Muldoon, & Kuehr, 2020; Hao, Yu, Tang, & Wu, 2022; Yu et al., 2023; Bigliardi et al., 2022; Vidal-Ayuso, Akhmedova, & Jaca, 2023). At the same time, new subcategories, such as pro-environmental intentions, circular citizenship behaviors (Pacheco, van der Werff, & Steg, 2025) and pro-circular consumption (Arias, Quiroga Beltrán, Martínez Ariza, Cadena Lozano, & Bello Bernal, 2022), have emerged, further complicating conceptual coherence. This fragmentation generates several interrelated problems: (1) limited comparability of empirical findings across domains, (2) inconsistent measurement and scale development and (3) weak cumulative theory-building in sustainability behavior research.
Although numerous reviews exist within individual domains, particularly for green consumption (Gomes & Lopes, 2024; Lopes, Pinho, & Gomes, 2023; Lopes, Gomes, & Trancoso, 2024), current scholarship lacks a systematic and comparative synthesis of PEB, SCB and CB within a unified analytical framework. Existing reviews typically focus on determinants within a single stream, adopt bibliometric approaches, or concentrate on specific sectors. Consequently, the field lacks a structured comparison that clarifies conceptual distinctions, maps theoretical convergence and divergence and identifies domain-specific methodological patterns.
This gap is particularly significant given the increasing policy emphasis on circular economy strategies and sustainable consumption transitions. Without conceptual clarity, research risks reinforcing terminological ambiguity and policymakers may design interventions based on incomplete or inconsistent behavioral assumptions.
The objective of this study is to conduct a structured and integrative scoping review of the recent scientific literature on PEB, SCB and CB published between 2019 and 2025 (last 7 years), in order to systematically compare and clarify their conceptual foundations, theoretical frameworks, methodological approaches and contextual applications.
To achieve this objective, we address the following research questions:
What are the similarities and differences among PEB, SCB and CB?
What theoretical approaches dominate recent research in each domain?
What determinants influence these behaviors, and how do they differ across domains?
What methodological approaches are used to measure and model them?
Using the PRISMA protocol, we analyze 258 peer-reviewed articles from Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, covering the period 2019–2025. The final sample is examined through the theory–context–characteristics–methods (TCCM) framework, enabling a structured cross-domain synthesis.
This study makes four primary contributions. First, it is the first comparative scoping review that analyzes PEB, SCB and CB within a single analytical framework, thereby clarifying conceptual boundaries and resolving persistent terminological ambiguities. Second, it maps the evolution of theoretical foundations in the last seven years, showing how classical behavioral models increasingly intersect with innovation theory, marketing frameworks and technology adoption models, particularly in SCB and CB research. Third, it identifies domain-specific differences in determinants, revealing a shift from predominantly psychological explanations in PEB toward greater emphasis on economic, technological and systemic variables in SCB and CB. Fourth, it critically assesses methodological patterns, highlighting the dominance of self-reported survey designs and underscoring the need for longitudinal, experimental and observational approaches to strengthen causal inference.
By integrating fragmented research streams, this study provides a coherent theoretical map of sustainability-related consumer behavior and offers a clearer foundation for future empirical research and policy design.
2. Methodology
Three independent systematic reviews were conducted focusing on PEB, SCB and CB, respectively. All adopted the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guideline (PRISMA 2020 statement; Page et al., 2021) for data collection and process reporting. Two researchers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to decrease bias (Table 1), following best practices (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008).
Selection criteria
| Criteria | Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Type of article | Peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles (full papers) | Conference papers, editorials, book chapters, books and working papers |
| Time | Published in the last 7 years (2019–2025) | Published before 2019 |
| Language | Written in the English language | Written in other languages |
| Knowledge domain | Economics, business, management and sustainable development | Others |
| Scope | Measurements, factors and behavior change methods | Others |
| Methodology | Original theoretical and experimental studies, systematic literature reviews and meta-analysis of experimental studies | Bibliometric analysis |
Three widely used academic databases were selected: Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scopus and Web of Science were chosen as the two largest curated indexes of peer-reviewed journal articles in economics, business, management and sustainability science, ensuring coverage of high-quality sources with verified metadata. Google Scholar was used as a complementary source to capture recent publications and to mitigate indexing delays typical of the two core databases; it was treated as supplementary rather than standalone. Specialized databases (e.g. PsycINFO and EBSCOhost) were not included; this limitation is explicitly acknowledged in Section 5.4.
The database search covered January 2019–December 2025. The PRISMA 2020 flow (Figure 1) details the screening process, yielding a final sample of 258 peer-reviewed articles (104 PEB, 82 SCB and 72 CB). Recent research increasingly emphasizes AI–sustainability intersections and experimental/longitudinal designs, both of which are reflected in the sample.
The flowchart details the stages of identifying new studies for a systematic literature review. It starts with the identification phase where records are identified from various databases and registers, including Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and others, totaling 2,295 records. Records are then removed before screening due to duplicates, ineligibility marked by automation tools, and other reasons, reducing the count to 1,722 records screened. In the screening phase, 350 records are excluded, leaving 1,372 reports sought for retrieval. Of these, 1,064 reports are not retrieved, resulting in 308 reports assessed for eligibility. In the eligibility phase, reports are excluded for not meeting inclusion criteria, wrong study design, and insufficient data, leading to 258 new studies included in the review.PRISMA 2020 flow diagram: systematic literature review of pro- environmental, sustainable consumer and circular behaviors. Source: Elaborated by authors
The flowchart details the stages of identifying new studies for a systematic literature review. It starts with the identification phase where records are identified from various databases and registers, including Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and others, totaling 2,295 records. Records are then removed before screening due to duplicates, ineligibility marked by automation tools, and other reasons, reducing the count to 1,722 records screened. In the screening phase, 350 records are excluded, leaving 1,372 reports sought for retrieval. Of these, 1,064 reports are not retrieved, resulting in 308 reports assessed for eligibility. In the eligibility phase, reports are excluded for not meeting inclusion criteria, wrong study design, and insufficient data, leading to 258 new studies included in the review.PRISMA 2020 flow diagram: systematic literature review of pro- environmental, sustainable consumer and circular behaviors. Source: Elaborated by authors
3. Results of statistical analysis
The results of the statistical analysis indicate that 33.0% of the articles on PEB are review papers, while 9.7% represent meta-analyses of experimental studies. The remaining publications comprise original theoretical and empirical research. The topics addressed in these original studies can be grouped into four main thematic clusters, as illustrated in Figure 2.
The image contains three vertical bar graphs side by side. The first graph, labeled Panel 1, shows research topics on Pro-Environmental Behavior (PEB) with one hundred three studies. The second graph, labeled Panel 2, displays research topics on Sustainable Consumption Behavior (SCB) with eighty-one studies. The third graph, labeled Panel 3, presents research topics on Circular Behavior (CB) with seventy-two studies. Each graph has different categories on the y-axis and the percentage of studies on the x-axis. The first graph includes categories such as Determinants of PEB, Interventions and behavior change, Spillover and workplace PEB including A I effects, and Tourism and place-based PEB. The second graph includes categories like Determinants of SCB, Green/sustainable purchasing and fashion, A I and digital influencer marketing, Intergenerational transmission, Food and lifestyle consumption, and Measurement and scale development. All values are approximated. Research topics of original theoretical and experimental studies on PEBs
The image contains three vertical bar graphs side by side. The first graph, labeled Panel 1, shows research topics on Pro-Environmental Behavior (PEB) with one hundred three studies. The second graph, labeled Panel 2, displays research topics on Sustainable Consumption Behavior (SCB) with eighty-one studies. The third graph, labeled Panel 3, presents research topics on Circular Behavior (CB) with seventy-two studies. Each graph has different categories on the y-axis and the percentage of studies on the x-axis. The first graph includes categories such as Determinants of PEB, Interventions and behavior change, Spillover and workplace PEB including A I effects, and Tourism and place-based PEB. The second graph includes categories like Determinants of SCB, Green/sustainable purchasing and fashion, A I and digital influencer marketing, Intergenerational transmission, Food and lifestyle consumption, and Measurement and scale development. All values are approximated. Research topics of original theoretical and experimental studies on PEBs
Within the subsample of 82 articles on SCB, 29 papers (35.4%) are various types of reviews and two studies (2.5%) are meta-analyses of experimental research (including Neves, Oliveira, & Santini, 2025). The remaining articles represent original theoretical and empirical investigations covering a broad range of issues (see Figure 2). The final sample on CB includes 72 papers, of which 21 articles (29.2%) are reviews. The remaining studies are original contributions. Overall, these publications can be classified into ten thematic clusters of unequal size (Figure 2).
As shown in Figure 2, research topics related to CB are more diverse than in the previous two domains, reflecting the multidimensional and evolving nature of the concept. Nevertheless, the determinants of CB remain the predominant focus of scholarly attention, suggesting that the field is still primarily concerned with identifying explanatory factors rather than developing intervention frameworks or longitudinal evidence.
4. Content analysis results
4.1 Pro-environmental behavior (PEB)
Concept. The concept of PEB was developed back in the early 2000s and has not undergone major changes since then. The most cited definition by Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002), Steg and Vlek (2009), Schwartz et al. (2012) and Kharat, Murthy, Kamble, and Kharat (2017) state that PEB is behavior “that consciously seeks to minimize the negative impact of one's actions on the natural and built world. Recent studies refine these definitions. Heinz and Koessler (2021) emphasize PEB as a public good. Walton and Jones (2022) note that PEB can be performed individually or collectively, in the past, present or future. Linder, Giusti, Samuelsson, and Barthel (2022) define pro-environmental habits (PEH) as habits benefiting the environment or harming it minimally.
When categorizing PEBs, most papers follow Stern’s (2000) classification, dividing into: environmental activism, nonactivist public sphere behaviors, private-sphere environmentalism and other environmentally significant behaviors. However, the majority focus on private behavior, while activism is often considered outdoor physical activity (Rosa & Collado, 2020). Terminology confusion persists. Lee and Khan (2020) use pro-environmental, green, sustainable and eco-friendly behavior synonymously. At least three articles introduce new conceptualizations (PEI, PEH and pro-environmental consumer behavior (PECB)), indicating the need for terminological clarity.
Theory. Modern PEB theory basics include value-belief-norm (VBN) theory (Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999), theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), norm activation model (NAM) (Schwartz, 1977), protection motivation theory (PMT) (Maddux & Rogers, 1983), theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and Kollmuss and Agyeman model (2002). Recent theoretical approaches include two-phase decision-making and social network theory (Chao et al., 2021), cognition-affect-behavior model (Cao, Qiu, Morrison, & Guo, 2024), stimulus organism response theory (Lavuri, Roubaud, & Grebinevych, 2023), integration of NAM with expectancy theory (Tang, Hu, Long, & Zhao, 2023) and TPB merged with PMT (Wang et al., 2019).
Recent studies reinforce TPB/VBN dominance while introducing novel frameworks (appraisal theory, extended stimulus-organism-response model (SOR) and moral cleansing) and integrations with self-determination theory (SDT) and artificial intelligence device use acceptance (AIDUA) (Lin, He, & Zhu, 2025; Li, Zhang, & Wen, 2025; Wei, Su, & Du, 2025; Bibi, Hashmi, Nauman, Abbass, & Song, 2025; Eskandari & Fatemi, 2025).
Methods. Methodologically, PEB research is mature but highly reliant on survey-based data and structural equation modelling (SEM) modeling (Yuriev, Dahmen, Boiral, Paillé, & Guillaumie, 2020). Systematic reviews and scoping studies are numerous (Farrukh, Raza, Mansoor, Khan, & Lee, 2023), indicating conceptual consolidation. However, experimental and observational designs remain comparatively limited (Lange & Dewitte, 2019). Articles were divided into: systematic literature reviews (29.8%), scoping reviews (17.9%), theoretical studies (11.9%), surveys with descriptive statistics (14.3%), surveys with multivariate statistics (9.5%), surveys with SEM models (7.1%), surveys with forecasting (4.8%) and qualitative methods (4.8%). The large number of reviews indicates high elaboration of PEB topic. Most recent studies use experimental survey data for SEM or similar methods measuring factor influences on behavior or intentions. Many utilize national or international survey data building regression, cluster and discriminant models. Recent work broadens methods toward cross-cultural experiments, longitudinal designs, scenario-based studies and dissonance interventions (Zhu, Tao, & Zheng, 2025; Tian et al., 2025; Su, Li, Wen, & He, 2025; Burman, Klas, Schneps, Westrupp, & Benstead, 2025), partially addressing the field's survey overreliance.
4.2 Sustainable consumption behavior (SCB).
Concept. SCB is often defined by the OECD (2002) as meeting basic needs and ensuring quality of life without affecting future generations' needs (Elhoushy & Jang, 2023; Hoşgör, Güngördü, & Hoşgör, 2023; Joshi & Rahman, 2019). This reflects sustainable development itself. Achieved through actions decreasing adverse environmental impacts and reducing natural resource utilization across product lifecycles (White, Habib, & Hardisty, 2019; Biercewicz, Chrachol-Barczyk, Duda, & Wiscicka-Fernando, 2022). Focus placed on the environmental component during purchase, use and disposal stages. Social component noted less frequently (Hosta & Zabkar, 2021; Jia, Iqbal, Ayub, Fatima, & Rasool, 2023). Some papers add consumer well-being to environmental and social components (Elhoushy & Lanzini, 2020). Many studies conflate green consumption, environmental consumption, environmentally friendly behavior, SCB, responsible consumption and sustainable living as synonyms.
Some authors emphasize continuity. Elhoushy and Jang (2023) note that sustainable reflects continuity or long-term commitment, ensuring SCBs mitigate environmental problems. Most frequently understood as individual behavior, though some address company sustainable behavior. Feil, da Silva Cyrne, Sindelar, Barden, and Dalmoro (2020) mention that sustainable consumption is part of a complex interactive system encompassing simultaneous consumption and production processes.
Theory. SCB research demonstrates greater theoretical plurality than PEB. While TPB and VBN remain influential (Saari, Damberg, Frömbling, & Ringle, 2021), studies increasingly integrate different theories, such as behavioral reasoning theory (Diddi, Yan, Bloodhart, Bajtelsmit, & McShane, 2019), stakeholder theory, regulatory focus theory, technology adoption models (Zia & Alzahrani, 2022) and social learning theory. This reflects SCB's intersection with marketing, innovation and socio-technical transitions.
SCB research confirms theoretical plurality (TPB, SDT, VBN, AIDUA, social service robot interaction trust (SSRIT)) and signals convergence of behavioral psychology, technology adoption and digital marketing (Neves et al., 2025; Rai & Narwal, 2025; Riyat, Kakkar, Sharma, & Walia, 2025).
Context and characteristics. SCB is dominated by determinant studies (63.9% of original research). Recent studies increasingly focus on specific product contexts such as circular fashion and sustainable apparel (Helinski, Westmattelmann, & Schewe, 2025). Important new direction studies intergenerational transmission within families (Lissillour, Essiz, Boninsegni, & Song, 2025). Research is expanding on digital marketing and brand activism roles (Irfan & Bryla, 2025). Three 2025 directions stand out: AI-driven consumption, intergenerational transmission and digital influencer marketing (Sharma & Sharma, 2025; Lata & Rana, 2025; Shan & Xu, 2025). Except Zia and Alzahrani (2022), investigating farmer behavior, all studies individual consumers. The range of studied SCB practices and domains is very broad.
Most studies examine SCB practices across product lifecycle stages from purchase to end-of-life. Unlike the PEB sample, no papers examine environmental activism practices. Some examine circular economy practices without labeling them as such.
Methods. Methods divided into: systematic literature reviews (27.8%), scoping reviews (16.7%), theoretical papers (11.1%), surveys with descriptive statistics (13.9%), surveys with multivariate statistics (8.3%), surveys with SEM models (12.5%), surveys with forecasting (5.6%) and qualitative/mixed methods (4.2%). Methodologically, Helinski et al. (2025) are interesting due to a dual approach using qualitative comparative analysis and regression analysis, studying willingness to pay for circular fashion.
4.3 Circular behavior (CB)
Concept. Koch, Vringer, van der Werff, Wilting, and Steg (2024) define circular consumption behavior as individual acts satisfying needs through acquiring, using and disposing of goods and services contributing to circular economy principles. Arias et al. (2022) offer a similar definition using the term pro-circular behavior. These definitions appeal to the circular economy concept itself. Gomes, Moreira, and Ometto (2022) define circular consumption systems as systems where consumers meet needs through circular transactional processes. A different approach by Fuchs and Hovemann (2022) and Rabiu and Jaeger-Erben (2022) understands CB as consumers' willingness to uptake circular products or services, assuming products are already developed by business.
Most authors do not provide a specific CB definition but operationalize it through practices. Paparella, Vecchio, Cembalo, and Lombardi (2023) equate CB with acquiring recycled products, maintenance, taking back products and reusing goods. Many studies use PEB, sustainable consumption and CB synonymously (Parajuly et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2023; Bigliardi et al., 2022; Vidal-Ayuso et al., 2023). Although explicit CB definitions appear mainly after 2019, its roots lie in circular-economy scholarship (industrial symbiosis, product-service systems (PSS), remanufacturing). What is new is the systemic framing and integration of consumer behavior into circular economy (CE) transition models, with emphasis on behavioral plasticity and system adoption.
Theory. CB research integrates different theories, such as innovation and technology adoption models (Islam et al., 2024), social practice theory (Arman & Mark-Herbert, 2022), motivation, opportunity, ability framework (Lundberg, Vainio, Roberg, & Korsunova, 2024) and behavioral plasticity (Koch et al., 2024).
Compared to PEB and SCB, CB demonstrates stronger integration of economic and technological determinants (Parajuly et al., 2020).
Context and characteristics. CB research exhibits the greatest thematic diversity. Determinants remain a key topic (53.7% of articles). Emerging topics include circular citizenship (Pacheco et al., 2025), household circular literacy (Tan & Yeoh, 2025) and agent-based waste-management modeling (Fani, Acerbi, de Oliveira Quadras, & Bandinelli, 2025). Almost 26% of articles focus on business domain circular practices implementation. Some papers focus on consumer behavior in business decision contexts.
Individual CB spans multiple sectors and lifecycle stages: eco-friendly actions (sharing, reusing and recycling), reusable/biodegradable packaging and take-back schemes, e-waste circular practices (purchase of refurbished, donation and recycling), reverse logistics for coffee capsules and other recyclables, household waste separation and pre-cycling, circular fashion (rental, second-hand, repair and upcycling) and product–service systems (rental, leasing and C2C resale) (Koch et al., 2024; Gonella, Godinho Filho, Ganga, Latan, & Jabbour, 2024; Gomes et al., 2022; Maitre-Ekern & Dalhammar, 2019; Alves, Seixas, Castro, & Leitão, 2024; Ratner, Lazanyuk, Revinova, & Gomonov, 2020; Arias et al., 2022; Ramadhanti, Suryandaru, & Amelia, 2024; Testa, Iovino, & Iraldo, 2020; Islam et al., 2024; Corsini, Gusmerotti, & Frey, 2020; Kamal et al., 2022; Fraccascia, Ceccarelli, & Dangelico, 2023; do Carmo Stangherlin, Thøgersen, & de Barcellos, 2023; Bigliardi et al., 2022; Abuabara, Paucar-Caceres, & Burrowes-Cromwell, 2019; Szilagyi, Cioca, Bacali, Lakatos, & Birgovan, 2022; Polyportis, Mugge, & Magnier, 2022; Alyahya, Agag, Aliedan, & Abdelmoety, 2023; Nguyen, 2024; Nainggolan et al., 2019; Lundberg et al., 2024; Jimenez-Fernandez, Aramendia-Muneta, & Alzate, 2023; Patwary, O'Hare, & Sarker, 2020; Rotimi, Daronkola, Topple, & Johnson, 2024; Fuchs & Hovemann, 2022; Koide, Yamamoto, Nansai, & Murakami, 2023; Retamal, 2019; Arman & Mark-Herbert, 2022).
Researchers are increasingly interested in the purchase of circular products. These types distinguish CB from sustainable and PEB. Recent studies confirm that circular consumption choices are shaped by circular habits, environmental concerns and the search for pro-sustainable information (Gomes & Lopes, 2024), while green marketing factors, mediated by environmental concern, influence young consumers' purchasing decisions (Lopes, Pinho, & Gomes, 2024; Lopes, Gomes, & Trancoso, 2024).
Methods. Methods distributed as: systematic literature reviews (26.9%), scoping reviews (14.9%), theoretical frameworks (10.4%), surveys with descriptive statistics (13.4%), surveys with multivariate statistics (9.0%), surveys with SEM models (11.9%), surveys with forecasting (7.5%) and qualitative/mixed methods (6.0%). SEM model building using survey data remains a dominant approach to studying determinants for both individual and business CB. No meta-analysis papers encountered, likely because CB topic is new. Recent CB studies broaden methods via Bayesian belief networks (Tapsuwan et al., 2025) and natural experiments on reuse incentives (Metta & Rousseau, 2025).
4.4 Comparative synthesis and boundary clarification
PEB, SCB and CB share a normative orientation toward environmental protection but differ in scope and system embeddedness (Table 2). PEB is the broadest, covering both private-sphere actions and activism. SCB is narrower, focused on lifecycle-stage consumption decisions and overlaps with private-sphere PEB. CB differs more fundamentally: it is tied to circular economy principles – closing loops via reuse, repair, sharing, take-back and product–service systems – and depends structurally on product design, business models and enabling infrastructures. CB is therefore not a subset of SCB but a system-embedded behavioral class.
Cross-domain comparison using TCCM
| PEB | SCB | CB | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theory | Is dominated by socio-psychological models (TPB, VBN, NAM) | Incorporates marketing, innovation and lifestyle theories | Increasingly integrates economic, technological and systems-transition theories |
| Context | Is primarily individual and private-sphere focused | Remains individual but includes supply chain considerations | Frequently extends to business, procurement and institutional actors |
| Characteristics | Includes activism and lifestyle behavior | Emphasizes lifecycle stages of consumption | Emphasizes loop-closing practices and system participation |
| Methods | Rely heavily on surveys and SEM | Rely heavily on surveys and SEM | Rely heavily on surveys and SEM; however, CB includes more modeling and system simulations |
The comparative application of TCCM reveals a progression from psychologically oriented environmental action (PEB) to system-embedded circular transition behaviors (CB).
5. Conclusions and directions for future research
This study set out to clarify and compare PEB, SCB and CB in terms of conceptual boundaries, dominant theories, determinants and methodological approaches. Based on a PRISMA-guided scoping literature review of 258 articles published between 2019 and 2025 and on the TCCM framework, the analysis shows that the three constructs overlap in their environmental orientation. Still, they differ in scope, analytical focus and degree of system embeddedness.
The paper contributes in three main theoretical ways. First, it clarifies the analytical boundaries among PEB, SCB and CB, addressing earlier work by Stern (2000), Steg and Vlek (2009), Elhoushy and Jang (2023), Gomes et al. (2022), Vidal-Ayuso et al. (2023) and Irfan and Bryla (2025). By bringing these streams into one comparative framework, the study reduces terminological ambiguity and supports more cumulative theory-building. Second, the comparison shows a movement from psychologically grounded environmental action in PEB toward more system-embedded circular transition behaviors in CB. This extends earlier discussions of circular consumption systems and circular economy behavior by showing more explicitly how structural and institutional conditions become more central as the object of behavior shifts from general environmental action to loop-closing practices. Third, the review shows that PEB remains relatively consolidated around TPB, VBN and NAM, whereas CB still draws on a more fragmented mix of adoption, practice and systems-oriented perspectives. This identifies a clear need for integrative models that connect behavioral, economic and infrastructural explanations.
The findings also have practical implications. For PEB, norm-based and value-based approaches remain relevant, consistent with foundational and recent behavioral frameworks (Stern et al., 1999; White et al., 2019). For SCB, the evidence points to the importance of lifecycle information, labeling and market incentives, in line with recent reviews of sustainable consumption and green marketing (Elhoushy & Jang, 2023; Irfan & Bryla, 2025). For CB, the review suggests that consumer willingness alone is insufficient. Effective CB depends on the availability of repair, reuse, take-back and service infrastructures, which resonates with recent work on circular consumption systems, information seeking and circular citizenship (Gomes et al., 2022; Testa et al., 2020; Koch et al., 2024; Pacheco et al., 2025). For firms, this means that circular strategies should combine product reliability, service convenience and reverse logistics. For policymakers, it means that sustainability transitions should be approached as systemic change rather than as individual moral responsibility alone.
Across the three domains, PEB remains the broadest category and includes both private-sphere and public-sphere forms of environmental action. SCB is narrower and centers on the acquisition, use and disposal of goods and services under sustainability criteria. CB differs more fundamentally because it is tied to circular economy principles and depends on product design, business models and enabling infrastructures. In methodological terms, the three domains still rely heavily on surveys and SEM, although more recent studies show gradual movement toward experiments, longitudinal designs and simulation-based approaches.
PEB, SCB and CB share a normative orientation toward environmental protection but differ in scope and system embeddedness. PEB is broadest, covering both private-sphere actions and activism. SCB is narrower, focused on lifecycle-stage consumption decisions and overlaps with private-sphere PEB. CB differs more fundamentally: it is tied to circular economy principles – closing loops via reuse, repair, sharing, take-back and product–service systems – and depends structurally on product design, business models and enabling infrastructures. CB is therefore not a subset of SCB but a system-embedded behavioral class.
