Metamorphosis through stakeholder behaviour: a validated behavioural framework for circular economy adoption in C&D waste management

Construction and demolition (C&D) waste accounts for 35 to 40% of global solid waste streams and contributes significantly to environmental risk, pollution, climate change and resource depletion (Tokede et al., 2022). Similarly, Australia generates more than 75 Mt of waste annually, of which C&D waste contributes the largest share, approximately 44% of the total waste generation (Blue Environment Pty Ltd, 2022). The circular economy (CE) has been widely promoted to address these challenges through resource efficiency, material recovery and lifecycle optimisation (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2021). According to Linder and Williander (2017), companies must adopt new business practices to become “circular”: they must narrow (use less energy and material), slow (make use of products and components longer), close (make use of products, elements and material yet again) and regenerate (using renewable energy, non-toxic material, along with regenerate natural environmental systems) their energy and material circulation. However, global circularity remains low at 7.2% (Circle Economy, 2023), indicating that regulatory and technical approaches have not achieved systemic change.

Existing studies identify barriers such as limited infrastructure, high cost for recycled materials, limited recycling infrastructure, low market demand, weak regulatory enforcement, inadequate incentives, stringent acceptable standards and insufficient training influencing adoption (Antwi-Afari et al., 2021; Grafström and Aasma, 2021; Dunant et al., 2017; Campbell-Johnston et al., 2019). Importantly, many of these barriers are closely linked to stakeholder behaviour. Cost related barriers reflect stakeholders’ evaluation of benefit and risk. Perceived higher costs of recycled materials and uncertainty regarding financial returns influence attitudinal judgements towards CE adoption (Guerra and Leite, 2021). According to TPB, such cost benefit assessments directly shape attitudes and intention to adopt CE (Ajzen, 1991). Similarly, concerns regarding quality standards and compliance (Ghaffar et al., 2020) represent perception-based evaluations rather than purely technical limitations. Barriers related with inadequate training, insufficient infrastructure and limited knowledge constrain stakeholders perceived ability to adopt CE (Begum et al., 2009; Adams et al., 2017). These constraints align with perceived behavioural control, which is influenced by access to resources, institutional support and skills (Ajzen, 1991). Regulatory uncertainty and weak policy enforcement further affect normative expectations within supply chains, shaping subjective norms (Dunant et al., 2017).

Although the above discussion demonstrates that CE barriers are fundamentally behavioural, existing C&D research has not comprehensively addressed these behavioural dimensions. Several studies analyse economic feasibility, regulatory barriers and material acceptance (Park et al., 2020; Shooshtarian et al., 2022), while others apply selected TPB constructs to explain intention (Adabre et al., 2023). However, these investigations often focus on rational determinants such as cost and perceived control, with limited integration of moral dimensions such as responsibility and awareness of consequences, central to the NAM (De Groot and Steg, 2009). As a result, behavioural drivers are examined separately rather than within a balanced and integrated framework. Furthermore, while interventions including financial incentives, regulatory reforms, infrastructure investment and training programs are widely proposed (Charef et al., 2021; Urbinati et al., 2023), they are generally presented as technical or policy solutions. The explicit linkage between these interventions and the behavioural determinants they are intended to influence is rarely articulated. This limits both theoretical clarity and practical targeting. In addition, prior research gives limited attention to early design-stage decisions and often addresses CE strategies selectively. While these broader considerations remain important, the present study specifically focuses on developing a behaviourally grounded framework that integrates rational and moral determinants and systematically links them to targeted interventions. The next section explains the theoretical underpinning of the framework.

As discussed in the previous section, the barriers identified in C&D waste management are closely associated with stakeholder behaviour. However, behavioural determinants have not been comprehensively examined in the C&D waste management context. Most studies emphasise economic, technical or regulatory constraints, while the combined influence of rational evaluations and moral responsibility remains underexplored. Sustainable decision-making is shaped by both rational considerations and moral obligations (Ding et al., 2023; Li and Wu, 2019). In construction settings, stakeholders respond to economic incentives, operational efficiency and regulatory pressures (Tam and Tam, 2009; Ghisellini et al., 2018). On a similar note, in facilities management contexts, asset management practices and lifecycle costing shape how professionals evaluate CE adoption. When long term asset performance is considered instead of upfront project costs, CE becomes financially justifiable and hence influences attitudinal evaluation and perceived feasibility (Elmualim et al., 2012). Moreover, FM practitioners involve in asset management throughout the lifecycle are more aware of the long-term environmental impacts of decisions made during the design phase, thereby enhancing both the awareness of consequences and the moral responsibility for action (Kaewunruen et al., 2024). Yet environmental responsibility and ethical values also influence pro-environmental behaviour (Schwartz, 1977). Therefore, understanding CE adoption in C&D waste management requires integrating both rational and moral determinants. To establish a theoretical basis for examining these behavioural influences, the following section reviews relevant behavioural theories and justifies the behavioural framework illustrated in Figure 1.

There are multiple behavioural theories traditionally used in pro-environmental research such as the theory of self-regulation (TSR), theory of reasoned action (TRA), theory of planned behaviour (TPB), value belief norm (VBN), social cognitive theory (SCT), attitude behaviour context (ABC) theory, motivation opportunities abilities (MOA) model and norm activation model (NAM). While TRA and VBN emphasise attitudes and values but do not sufficiently address perceived behavioural control or feasibility constraints (Ajzen and Fishbein, 2004; Stern et al., 1999). Stern et al. (1999) offer insights into self-efficacy and behavioural reinforcement (Bandura, 1977) yet lacks depth in internalised moral obligations. The TPB explains intention through attitudes (A), subjective norms (SN) and perceived behavioural control (PBC) (Ajzen, 1991), making it suitable for analysing cost perceptions, capability constraints, regulatory influence identified in C&D studies. However, TPB primarily captures deliberative decision making and may underrepresent moral responsibility. The NAM complements this by explaining behaviour through personal norms (PN), awareness of consequences (AC), ascribed responsibility (AR) (Schwartz, 1977; De Groot and Steg, 2009), but does not explicitly address feasibility or economic considerations. Given that CE adoption in C&D waste management involves both economic reasoning and moral accountability, neither TPB nor NAM alone is sufficient. Integrating both frameworks enhances explanatory power in environmental behaviour research (Bamberg and Möser, 2007). Although a prior study by Ding et al. (2023) have combined these theories, their application remains context specific. The indicators used to measure the behavioural constructs vary across sectors and decision environments. Behaviour is shaped by contextual factors (Constantino et al., 2021); therefore, indicators are required to reflect industry-specific conditions. In the C&D sector, behavioural studies are limited and often focus on single CE principles, particularly recycling. A context-specific assessment of stakeholder behaviour for CE adoption at the design phase is therefore lacking. Therefore, the proposed theoretical framework adopts a hybrid TPB-NAM approach to systematically examine rational and moral determinants of stakeholders’ behaviour in CE adoption (Bamberg and Möser, 2007; Ding et al., 2023). This approach uses seven key constructs as mentioned above to measure behavioural intentions. These constructs were assessed through 25 indicators as shown in Figure 1. These indicators form the empirical backbone of 13 hypotheses, five rooted in TPB, two in NAM and six integrating both as outlined in the following figure to assess the behaviour of stakeholders to adopt CE in C&D waste management. The next section outlines the methodology.

This study adopts a qualitative approach incorporating a systematic literature review (SLR), semi-structured expert interviews and policy triangulation to explore stakeholder behaviour and CE adoption in C&D Waste Management.

The purpose of the SLR is to develop a theoretical framework to change the behaviour of stakeholders to adopt CE for C&D waste management. The search strategy included Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, focusing on peer-reviewed, English-language studies published in the last ten years related to stakeholder behaviour, CE and C&D waste. Keywords used for the literature search include TITLE-ABS-KEY[(“circular economy” OR circularity OR “closed-loop” OR “resource efficiency”) AND (“construction and demolition waste” OR “construction waste” OR “demolition waste” OR CDW OR “C&D waste”) AND (stakeholder* OR actor* OR decision-maker* OR client* OR contractor* OR designer* OR architect* OR engineer*) AND (behaviour OR behaviour OR “behavioural intention” OR “behaviour change” OR adoption OR implementation OR “decision making”)]. After the identification of records, explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria are applied to make sure only the studies directly relevant to the objectives of the research is retained. Studies were included if they addressed CE concepts within the context of C&D waste management and examined the role, decision making or behaviour of stakeholders involved in construction projects including clients, designers, developers, contractors or policy makers. Furthermore, considered the studies with behavioural aspects related to the implementation or adoption of CE practices. Only peer reviewed journal articles and review papers published in English in the last decade are included as significant advancements and policy developments in CE and C&D waste management are seen during this time frame, making recent studies more pertinent to the current research context (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). The studies focused on CE or waste management in other sectors except C&D is excluded. In addition, non-English publications and studies without full text access is also excluded. From an initial 861 records, 92 studies were selected after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Firstly, barriers to CE adoption in C&D waste management were identified and categorised into project-related and stakeholder-related barriers. Secondly, stakeholder-related barriers were further examined to identify underlying behavioural determinants. These behavioural barriers were translated into measurable indicators aligned with established constructs from TPB and NAM. Thirdly, hypotheses were derived from prior theoretical and empirical studies linking these constructs to behavioural intention. In parallel, interventions reported in the literature were identified and mapped to the corresponding behavioural constructs they aim to influence. Based on this structured process, a theory-grounded behavioural model was developed, which is presented in Figure 1.

To validate the framework, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 experts from Victoria, Australia, including 8 from industry, 2 from policy and 2 with combined academic and industry experience. Semi-structured interviews were chosen for their balance between structure and flexibility to explore emerging insights (Kallio et al., 2016). Victoria was selected as the study location due to its progressive CE policy, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) (2020) and its significant contribution to Australia’s C&D waste. Purposive sampling ensured participants had relevant expertise (Tongco, 2007). Because the study was considered the design and project planning phase of CE adoption, the participants were selected by their knowledge of sustainability, waste management, CE and project decision making. Several experts also had responsibilities related to lifecycle performance, building sustainability, resource efficiency and long-term asset outcomes, providing perspectives closely aligned with FM objectives. Interviews lasted approximately 45–60 min each. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A theory-driven coding approach was adopted, where barriers and TPB-NAM constructs guided initial coding, followed by refinement through iterative comparison. Codes were validated through repeated review and alignment with theoretical constructs, and only themes supported by clear expert agreement were retained. The contact details were obtained via LinkedIn and company websites. Data collection concluded upon saturation, with no new themes emerging. Ethical approval for the interviews was obtained from the Deakin University Human Ethics Committee (Ref: 2024/HE000112). Expert profiles are summarised in Table 1.

The study participants, each with 10–30 years of experience in CE and/or C&D Waste Management, brought substantial expertise to validate the proposed indicators. The findings of the semi structured interviews are analysed through a systematic manual coding and frequency analysis method. An initial coding framework is developed with the behavioural constructs, indicators and interventions identified from the literature. Manual coding was then undertaken by reviewing each transcript systematically and assigning codes to suitable segments of text related to constructs, indicators and interventions. Following coding, a manual frequency analysis is conducted by recording the number of interviews in which each construct, indicator and interventions was mentioned. The purpose of this frequency analysis was to assess the recurrence and consistency of expert perspectives and validating the literature derived theoretical framework and identifying any additional context specific elements. Frequency counts are used to indicate patterns of experts’ agreement rather than to use weighting or statistical importance of individual factors in accordance with qualitative research guidance.

In addition, a policy triangulation was conducted to assess the alignment between behavioural constructs and interventions identified from literature review and expert interviews and existing policy mechanisms. Key national and Victorian policy documents policy documents such as Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) (2020), Statewide Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan (SWRRIP) (2018) by Sustainability Victoria (2018), National Waste Policy (2018) and General Environmental Duty from the Environment Protection Act (Vic.), 2017were systematically reviewed. The identified constructs, indicators and interventions were mapped against policy objectives, instruments and implementation measures to assess the extent to which behavioural dimensions were explicitly addressed, partially supported or absent in current policy frameworks. The following section presents the findings from both expert interviews and policy analysis.

Based on the above theoretical discussion, the following section presents the framework developed for this study.

The theoretical framework is underpinned by seven behavioural constructs, each operationalised through specific indicators to capture the factors influencing stakeholder behaviour in CE adoption and discussed below.

Attitude is an individual’s favourable or unfavourable assessment of engaging in a particular behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). The indicator perceived cost (A1) was derived reflecting the barrier of stakeholders’ concerns about the financial implications of adopting CE practices, which often leads to resistance (Van Langen et al., 2021; Torres Curado et al., 2024). The barrier of limited awareness or appreciation for the environmental benefits of CE practices led to the development of the indicator perceived environmental benefits (A2), underscoring the need to understand the positive ecological impacts of CE adoption (Van Langen et al., 2021; Munaro and Tavares, 2023). Similarly, the lack of coherent policies supporting CE and the presence of regulations that inadvertently favour linear models informed the indicator policy objectives (A3), highlighting the critical influence of regulatory frameworks on stakeholders’ attitudes towards CE implementation (Mubarik et al., 2024; AlJaber et al., 2025). Given these barriers, stakeholders may be reluctant to adopt CE in C&D Waste Management. This leads to the first hypothesis:

The social influences that individuals experience from others who hold significance for them when they are making decisions about their behaviour is defined as the subjective norms (Ajzen, 1991). Several barriers related to social norms informed the development of key indicators influencing CE adoption. Resistance from peers towards new waste management practices led to the identification of the indicator peer influence (SN1), highlighting the significant impact of social resistance within the industry (Takacs et al., 2022; Sajid et al., 2024). Similarly, the lack of support from influential individuals or organisations, along with the absence of accreditation for secondary materials, gave rise to the indicator pressure from the government (SN2) (Ranta et al., 2018; Mahpour, 2018). In addition, negative public perceptions of construction waste as a nuisance or environmental threat informed the indicator pressure from the public (SN3), reflecting how societal attitudes can discourage the adoption of sustainable practices (Torres Curado et al., 2024). Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:

The perceived behavioural control is the perceived difficulty or ease of carrying out the behaviour. Several key barriers informed the development of indicators related to perceived behavioural control in CE adoption. The skills and training (PBC1) indicator was derived from the barrier of lacking skilled employees (Lee, 2023; Munaro and Tavares, 2023). The financial incentives (PBC2) indicator emerged from the absence of economic or regulatory drivers for waste reduction and recycling, which can lead stakeholders to prioritise cheaper disposal options over sustainable practices (Debnath and Sarkar, 2023). Inadequate infrastructure for sorting, recycling and disposal informed the accessibility of infrastructure (PBC3) indicator (Ramos et al., 2023; Zhao, 2021). Finally, the barrier of inconsistent or weak regulatory enforcement led to the regulations (PBC4) (AlJaber et al., 2025). Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

A measure of the effort that an individual is prepared to exert to perform the behaviour is defined as the behavioural intention (Ajzen, 1991). Intentions are assumed to capture the motivational factors that influence behaviour; they are indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of an effort they are planning to exert, to perform the behaviour. Generally, the stronger the intention to engage in a behaviour, the more likely should be its performance (Ajzen, 1991, p. 181).

Personal norms are the moral responsibility to carry out or refrain from activities, which is the prerequisite to behavioural intention (Schwartz, 1977). The indicator personal sustainability commitment (PN1) was derived from the barrier of lacking personal commitment to environmental responsibility (Takacs et al., 2022). The barrier of prioritising short-term gains over long-term environmental benefits led to the indicator balance between short- and long-term considerations (PN2) (Bertolotti and Roman, 2024; Haessler, 2020). Finally, environmental perception (PN3) emerged from poor environmental beliefs and awareness, emphasising how stakeholders’ environmental understanding shapes their moral norms and influences sustainable decision-making (Van Langen et al., 2021). This leads to the hypothesis:

Awareness of the negative impacts on others or valued aspects when failing to act pro-socially is defined as the awareness of consequences. Three key barriers informed the development of indicators under the awareness of consequences construct, which reflects stakeholders’ understanding of the broader impacts of their actions. The indicator knowledge of environmental benefits (AC1) was derived from the barrier of limited CE knowledge among political decision-makers (Van Langen et al., 2021; Kirchherr et al., 2017). The barrier of insufficient understanding of CE’s environmental and economic advantages led to the indicator of economic advantages (AC2) (Nujen et al., 2023). Finally, the indicator social implications (AC3) emerged from the barrier of limited understanding of CE’s societal benefits, underlining the need to acknowledge outcomes such as improved community well-being and long-term resource sustainability (Valencia et al., 2023; Chakraborty et al., 2024). This leads to the hypothesis:

A sense of accountability for the adverse effects resulting from not engaging in pro-social behaviour is defined as ascribed responsibility. Several barriers contributed to the development of indicators under awareness of responsibility, which relates to recognising the broader consequences of one’s actions in the context of CE adoption. The indicator knowledge of environmental benefits (AR1) was derived from the barrier of limited CE knowledge among political decision-makers (Van Langen et al., 2021; Kirchherr et al., 2017). Similarly, the indicator economic advantages (AR2) emerged from the barrier of inadequate understanding of CE’s environmental and financial benefits (Nujen et al., 2023). Finally, the barrier concerning limited awareness of CE’s societal value led to the indicator social implications (AR3), reflecting the need to acknowledge impacts on community well-being and long-term resource sustainability (Valencia et al., 2023; Chakraborty et al., 2024). Accordingly:

The remaining hypotheses integrate constructs from both the TPB and the NAM to explore the interplay between rational and moral determinants of behaviour:

The second component of the framework focuses on interventions, which represent the practical mechanisms through which behavioural change can be achieved. As per the previous work by Anne Dilogini et al. (2025), interventions are categorised into policy and regulatory measures, stakeholder engagement and education, economic incentives and market development, technological advancements and innovation and design and construction practices. A detailed explanation of how these interventions are linked with the behavioural constructs is discussed below.

Interventions aimed at improving stakeholder attitudes towards CE in C&D Waste Management focus on increasing awareness of its economic and environmental benefits. Educational programs, training sessions and on-site campaigns enhance understanding, while pilot projects and demonstration initiatives provide practical evidence of CE success (Ramos et al., 2023; Adams et al., 2017). Supportive policies and procurement standards further legitimise circular practices. To influence subjective norms, interventions establish positive social expectations. Awareness campaigns, recognition programs and leadership endorsement help normalise CE behaviours across the industry (Huang et al., 2023; Adams et al., 2017). Peer influence in project environments and regulatory requirements such as mandated recycling targets, create normative pressure that encourages broader adoption (Ramos et al., 2023). Enhancing perceived behavioural control involves providing necessary infrastructure (e.g. recycling centres, BIM tools) and simplifying processes (e.g. permitting for secondary materials). Training and clear guidelines build stakeholder confidence to engage in CE practices (Huang et al., 2023; Ramos et al., 2023; Adams et al., 2017). To strengthen personal norms, interventions focus on moral responsibility. Educational campaigns with value-based framing, like protecting future generations, promote internalisation of environmental values (Kaluarachchi et al., 2021; Zuo et al., 2017). Ethical leadership, sustainability charters and stakeholder empowerment foster a culture of individual responsibility (Adams et al., 2017; Ramos et al., 2023).

Raising awareness of consequences is supported by visual tools (posters, videos, site demos), training and real-life experiences (e.g. landfill visits), which help stakeholders connect their actions to broader environmental and societal impacts (Kaluarachchi et al., 2021; Zuo et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2023). Promoting ascribed responsibility involves assigning clear waste roles (e.g. site waste champions) and reinforcing accountability through policies and toolbox talks (Ramos et al., 2023; Zuo et al., 2017). Involving stakeholders in planning and using moral messaging strategies, such as environmental pledges, also builds a stronger sense of ownership (Adams et al., 2017; Kaluarachchi et al., 2021).

Validation was undertaken through expert interviews and policy triangulation to ensure theoretical rigour and contextual relevance, with details outlined in the subsections below.

All 12 experts unanimously confirmed the relevance of the seven behavioural constructs for assessing stakeholder behaviour in CE adoption in C&D Waste Management. In total, 31 indicators were validated, including 19 from the literature and 12 new indicators identified through expert insights (Table 2).

Under Attitude, experts reinforced existing indicators such as perceived cost, policy objectives and environmental benefits. Experts further highlighted education and technical literacy (new) as critical indicators, noting that “a lot of people still don’t even know what circular economy means in practice” (E2). Procurement and contracting models(new) were also highlighted as influential, particularly when CE requirements are not embedded into project documentation (E3). While Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) (2020) promotes CE as economically beneficial and the Sustainability Victoria (2016) addresses general awareness, but procurement models are not specifically discussed.

For SN literature-based indicators such as peer, government and public influence, were validated. Expert insights extended this construct by introducing leadership or hierarchical influence (new), company vision (new) and shareholder pressure (new) as significant indicators (E3, E4, E9). Although diversion targets in Recycling Victoria may indirectly affect norms, there is no explicit mention of social or internal organisational norms, making this area weakly supported in policy.

Within perceived behavioural control, indicators identified in literature such as regulations, financial incentives, training and infrastructure were validated. Experts further proposed the digital tools and platforms (new) as key enablers of behavioural control, especially for tracking waste and ensuring transparency (E6). While funding and infrastructure are supported through Recycling Victoria and SWRRIP (2018), digital literacy or technological readiness are not explicitly recognised as behavioural enablers.

Under Personal Norms, experts reinforced environmental commitment and introduced social motivation (new) and moral responsibility to future generations [new as additional drivers (E5)]. Although campaigns in the Victorian Waste Education Strategy attempt to foster responsibility, there is little attention to deep-rooted normative or moral drivers in current policies.

Awareness of Consequences, traditionally linked to environmental and economic awareness, was expanded by experts to include emotional responses such as climate anxiety (new), existential threat (new) and consequences of inaction (new) (E6). These emotional dimensions, though powerful motivators, are not reflected in any of the key policies analysed.

For Ascribed Responsibility, experts validated clarity of roles and regulatory accountability and extended the construct through local impact awareness (new) and the emotional burden of contributing to environmental harm (new) (E10). While legal responsibility is addressed through the Victoria (2017), but emotional and localised elements of responsibility are absent in existing policy frameworks.

Experts validated the intervention types identified in the literature and proposed 21 new interventions, bringing the total to 41 interventions across six categories (Table 3).

Under Policies and Regulatory Support, experts proposed construction-specific CE policies (new), phased mandates with clear short- and long-term targets (new) and planning incentives (new). While Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) (2020) established innovation funding and diversion targets, it does not include constriction specific mandates or phased behavioural requirements.

For Economic Instruments, experts proposed low-interest loans (new), tax relief (new) and household incentives such as council rate reductions for circular practices (new) as mechanisms to address cost related behavioural barriers. Current policies emphasise market development and landfill levies but do not extend incentives to household or other small-scale sectors.

Within Business and Technological Innovations, experts proposed digital material passports (new), standardised lifecycle assessment tools (new) and modular design strategies (new). While innovation funding is supported through initiatives like CEBIC, behavioural enablers linked to digital readiness are not embedded in policy explicitly.

In Education and Training, experts recommended embedding CE in TAFE and undergraduate curricula (new) and promoting Design for Disassembly practices (new). These align partially with education initiatives in the Sustainability Victoria (2016), although design focused training remains underdeveloped.

For Certifications and Ratings, experts called for mandatory red lists of toxic materials (new) and compulsory certifications (new), neither of which are mandated in recent policy frameworks Under Research and Development, experts emphasised industry case studies (new), broader knowledge-sharing (new) and community-led CE initiatives (new), which received limited formal policy support.

This study advances behavioural research in CE adoption for C&D Waste Management by critically applying the TPB and the NAM to a sector often overlooked in behavioural frameworks. While TPB and NAM constructs, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, personal norms, awareness of consequences and ascribed responsibility, have been previously applied in environmental behaviour studies (Ajzen, 1991; De Groot and Steg, 2009), this research moves beyond general application by contextualising 33 empirically grounded indicators to the C&D Waste Management domain.

Many of these indicators, such as perceived cost (A1), financial incentives (PBC2) and regulatory influence (PBC4), echo dominant themes in CE literature (Mahpour, 2018; Guerra and Leite, 2021). However, this reliance on rational-economic explanations reveals a persistent gap in addressing affective, normative and organisational dimensions. This study addresses that gap by introducing underrepresented factors like digital capability (PBC5), internal company culture (SN5) and moral/emotional triggers such as climate anxiety (AC4) and anticipated shame (AR5), elements more commonly examined in environmental psychology than in construction-related CE adoption.

Furthermore, this study challenges the traditional framing of policy goals as external influences and instead posits them as internalised motivators shaping stakeholder attitudes (A3). Similarly, while peer, government and public pressure are acknowledged in existing TPB studies (Yuriev et al., 2020), few studies integrate these pressures with institutional structures like procurement systems or contracting models. The findings suggest that stakeholder behaviour is shaped not only by capability or opportunity, but also by the alignment (or misalignment) of values, responsibilities and organisational support systems.

The intervention analysis reinforces this view. While existing literature supports many system-level actions (e.g. CE-specific policies, financial tools, education), this study critically reveals how many context-specific strategies, such as import restrictions, council rate reductions or material passport systems, remain under-theorised and lack behavioural grounding. Moreover, certification systems and community-led innovation are often discussed in principle but rarely evaluated for behavioural efficacy.

The outcomes of this study highlight how behavioural insights can drive transformative change in the management of C&D waste. The validated constructs and indicators reveal that behaviour is not only shaped by cost, infrastructure and regulation but also by organisational culture, digital capability and moral responsibility. By capturing both rational and emotional dimensions, the framework provides a more comprehensive basis for understanding how stakeholders adopt circular practices. Likewise, the interventions identified here demonstrate that meaningful change requires a combination of systemic measures, such as policy and market instruments, alongside cultural and educational initiatives that embed sustainability into everyday practice. Taken together, these contributions move beyond incremental improvements in waste management to illustrate how circular practices can become embedded within the broader lifecycle of the built environment. By emphasising behavioural readiness and proposing interventions that reconfigure norms, incentives and organisational values, the study demonstrates pathways for transitioning from linear approaches to circular, regenerative practices. Such changes are central to the ongoing transformation of facilities and the built environment, supporting safer, more resilient and more sustainable spaces for future generations.

This study contributes to knowledge by developing a theory-based behavioural framework to assess CE adoption in C&D waste management within the Australian context. The framework translates stakeholder-related barriers into measurable behavioural constructs grounded in the TPB and the NAM. By linking behavioural determinants with targeted interventions, the study provides a structured explanation of how rational and moral factors influence CE adoption during the design phase.

In practice, the framework can be implemented as a behavioural assessment tool at the early design stage. Project teams can use the identified indicators to evaluate stakeholder attitudes, perceived control and responsibility before procurement and material decisions are finalised. Based on the assessment results, targeted interventions such as training, financial incentives, regulatory adjustments or digital monitoring tools can be selected to address specific behavioural gaps. This enables policymakers and industry leaders to prioritise interventions that directly respond to identified barriers. For facilities management, early behavioural alignment improves material selection, waste planning and procurement decisions, contributing to safer waste handling, improved resource efficiency and better long-term asset performance.

The framework was validated through expert interviews in Victoria, which may limit broader applicability. The study focused on behavioural determinants at the design stage. Future research should empirically test the framework in different contexts including broader stakeholder and CE principle-based applications and examine how behavioural assessment influences CE implementation outcomes.