Circular economy innovation drivers and the role of quadruple helix stakeholders: a systematic literature review Open Access

Circular economy innovation (CEI) is crucial for achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the larger objectives of a circular economy (CE) (Leminen et al., 2021). With growing concerns about CEI, new collaborative and inclusive approaches are becoming essential, as various businesses remain inexperienced in the CE context (Brown et al., 2021). A systematic review by Hidrobo Morales et al. (2024) stresses the vital role of collaboration with other organisations in the implementation of innovation, thereby improving CE outcomes. Numerous less innovative firms face challenges in navigating these evolving dynamics; the findings suggest that collaboration networks can significantly improve CE practices (Ahmed et al., 2025). The evidence underscores the importance of inter-organisational collaboration in the implementation of innovation, especially where internal capabilities are constrained.

Effective collaboration is necessary among diverse stakeholders for the transition towards CE (Baah et al., 2023; Danvers et al., 2023; Murali et al., 2025). Many scholars have examined the drivers of CE from varying perspectives (see, for example, Gusmerotti et al. (2019), Platon et al. (2022), and Wuni (2023). However, this systematic literature review could not find any other comprehensive research study that exclusively focuses on the drivers of CEI in the framework of the quadruple helix (QH) stakeholders (i.e. government, academia, industry and civil society) (Aggarwal and Sindakis, 2022). Extant research predominantly focuses on CE practices, drivers and innovation, but often neglects the roles of different stakeholders, including the four pillars of the QH framework. The purpose of this review is to present a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the drivers and role of QH stakeholders in CEI.

To achieve this, we employ the systematic literature review protocol as proposed by Sauer and Seuring (2023). To understand the drivers and the roles of stakeholders in bolstering CEI. As a result, this study provides a comprehensive analysis of research on the drivers of CEI and the role of stakeholders in achieving CEI. This study aims to identify and categorise the key drivers enabling CEI across the governance, economic, organisational and societal dimensions. To recognise the pertinent groups among QH stakeholders that can affect these drivers. To offer strategic recommendations for QH stakeholders to collaborate effectively to advance CEI.

The distinct novelty of this review lies in systematically identifying CEI drivers and the stakeholders responsible for each of them, through a thematic analysis method. The review introduces a framework that distinguishes between transversal and non-transversal drivers and classifies the specific roles of each QH stakeholder and provides a distinction between primary and secondary stakeholders as leading influencers and supportive influencers across the different driver categories, previously unaddressed in the literature. The specific roles of government, academia, industry and civil society in advancing CE through innovation are largely overlooked in our study. However, it offers a theoretical bridge that explains why technological and economic drivers frequently fail in the absence of the underlying connective tissue of multi-actor engagement or cross-sector collaboration.

Therefore, this study's contribution remains unique in that it not only improves the current classification by defining more subcategories but also examines the significant role of each QH stakeholder member regarding different drivers. It also offers strategic recommendations for QH stakeholders to effectively collaborate to advance the CEI, recognising that the collaboration is not only a stand-alone driver of CEI but a prerequisite for all QH stakeholders to interact with and effectively adopt other drivers. As such, this thorough evaluation of the literature on the drivers of CEI and its potential for further study stands to make a significant contribution. The results of the study highlight the fact that CEI depends not only on the regulatory support or technological advancement, but on the systemic interplay of several drivers that mutually shape an ecosystem and promote circular transition. Future research should further investigate the interdependencies between these CEI drivers and assess how they can support the adoption of CE across multiple industries and policy frameworks.

This study addresses the growing scholarly calls to investigate how organisational change, policy shifts and stakeholder collaboration enable CEI. This review expands upon the foundational perspective from the stakeholder's theory, by identifying the drivers of CEI within the framework of the QH stakeholders' model, which emphasises the institutional theory and the alignment of multi-actor interest in complex innovation systems and explains how normative and regulatory forces shape behaviour towards CE adoption. Additionally, collaboration and network theory, and systems thinking are employed to explore how inter-organisational networks and feedback mechanisms facilitate shared learning, resource efficiency and the scaling of innovation.

The structure of this review is as follows: Section 2 presents a theoretical perspective, conceptual foundations and research questions. The methodology adopted in the review is presented in Section 3. Section 4 presents the results and discussions, as well as several driver types within the QH framework, with relevant stakeholder categories. The conceptual framework and strategic recommendations are also presented in this section. The implication of the review is presented in section 5. Finally, we conclude and outline a future research agenda in Section 6.

This review study builds on extant literature by identifying and classifying important antecedents that influence CEI. The study creates a methodical framework that clarifies how various QH framework stakeholders work together to promote CEI. The study is based on Freeman's (1984), who introduced the stakeholder theory, which holds that organisations must consider the interests of all stakeholders, not just one shareholder, to create long-term value. In the framework of this review, this theory supports the idea that many stakeholder interests, such as government, industry, academia and civil society, must work together to successfully implement circular innovation through shared responsibility.

Institutional theory, as introduced by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), helps explain QH dynamics by influencing how government, industry, academia and civil society actors align and adopt within the CE context. By showing how normative, coercive and mimetic pressures impact multi-actor interactions. This perspective highlights that best practices are emulated in the face of uncertainty through sectoral standards, financial incentives, professional expectations, shared values and regulatory compliance. By promoting convergence in strategies and structures to promote CE innovation, these dynamics collectively affect stakeholder alignment inside the QH framework. Provan and Kenis (2008) use network theory to analyse governance in interorganisational networks. Their approach identifies three different forms of network governance (shared governance, lead-organisation governance and network-administrative organisation) and explains why and how multi-actor collaboration works. The processes for trust, coordination and centralisation are different for each type of governance. Nonetheless, this framework sheds light on how various governance structures might help or impede QH stakeholders' ability to work together in the context of CEI. Based on these perspectives, thematic analysis of this review study classifies collaboration and knowledge sharing drivers as transversal, highlighting the circumstances in which collaboration promotes the implementation of innovation.

Systems thinking, as proposed by Meadows (2008), is an analytical method for understanding complex socio-ecological systems. It captures the dynamics and interdependence of CE systems and attributes this to ideas that clarify how feedback loops, time delays and complex causal relationships influence outcomes within socio-technical systems. From this perspective, CEI results from continuous stakeholders' interactions rather than from isolated drivers. The findings of this review reflect this systemic view, collaborative, consumer-centric, governance-related, organisational, technological and economic drivers interact continuously. For instance, while consumer preferences affect stakeholder collaboration, governance policies may create financial incentives that facilitate organisational and technological changes.

Innovation is conceptualised differently across numerous sectors. For example, innovation is the creation of new goods, services or business models that increase private sector competitiveness and operational effectiveness (Obwegeser and Müller, 2018). On the other hand, innovation in government, academia and civil society goes beyond commercial applications and includes policy innovation (new regulatory frameworks and public initiatives), process innovation (enhanced operational mechanisms) and social innovation (community-driven solutions to sustainability challenges) (Bertot et al., 2016). Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) stated that CEI is the systematic creation and application of innovative goods, regulations, services and organisational strategies that facilitate the shift from a linear economy to a resource-efficient, regenerative and sustainable economic system. Suchek et al. (2021) highlighted that CEI places a high priority on systemic collaborations to increase resource efficiency, prioritise closed-loop value chains, digital transformation and decrease environmental degradation, and simultaneously promote economic resilience and sustainable industrial development.

The successful adoption and scaling of CEI depend on a wide range of interrelated factors that facilitate and maintain circular transitions. The categorisation of these drivers into collaborative and knowledge-sharing, organisational economic, governance and policy, consumer-centric and technological drivers plays a key role in shaping the CE landscape, as suggested by the extant literature (Tura et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2022; Munaro and Tavares, 2023). The collaborative drivers underline the stipulation of co-creation, cross-sector partnerships and multi-actor engagement, to enable knowledge exchange, collaborations and trust among various QH stakeholders (Fehrer et al., 2022). These collaborations foster a shared vision for CE transitions to confirm expressive contributions from various QH stakeholders of CEI processes. The Governance and policy drivers offer an important institutional and regulatory framework for the implementation strategies of CE. These include public-sector procurement mandates, adaptable policy instruments and regulatory frameworks that foster circular practices (Toffanin and Jezic Von Gesseneck, 2022). Behavioural and socio-cultural dimensions of CE adoption are addressed by the consumer-centric drivers. These encompass awareness campaigns, community engagement outreach and eco-labelling schemes aimed at stimulating demand for circular products and services (Barreiro-Gen and Lozano, 2020).

Technological drivers, which enhance the effectiveness and scalability of circular business models, are largely dependent on technological forces. Improving CE implementation techniques and developing data-informed governance tools depend on the use of digital transformation tools, blockchain, artificial intelligence and eco-innovation research and development (Häggmark and Elofsson, 2022; Halim-Lim et al., 2025). However, organisational drivers that ensure that organisations and businesses institutionalise circularity in their operational structures include adaptive leadership, inter-organisational network coordination and sustainable management techniques (Sohal and De Vass, 2022).

Knowledge-sharing drivers encourage cross-sector learning through mechanisms like collaborative research platforms, open innovative networks and CE-focused funding programs (Jesus and Jugend, 2023). Finally, Economic drivers reduce financial risks and boost economic incentives by establishing the long-term viability of CE implementation.

These include tax incentives, subsidies, sustainable finance and the mainstreaming of circular business models, which collectively reduce economic barriers to CE adoption (Forastero, 2023). This study incorporates these drivers into an extensive analytical framework that demonstrates how a multidimensional approach encompassing governance, technology, economic viability and stakeholder engagement can promote sustainable CE transitions.

There are several levels at which CE procedures can be applied. At the micro level, Individual organisations and businesses integrate circular methods into their operations. At the meso-level, organisations engage in industrial symbiosis and resource-exchange initiatives, thereby strengthening local economies through coordinated waste valorisation and collective sustainability goals.

At the macro level, large-scale CE transitions are facilitated by national and international policies that integrate sustainable production and consumption patterns across sectors and geographical areas (Jesus and Jugend, 2023). Collaboration remains a critical enabler of success, regardless of the level of CEI implementation. Sudusinghe and Seuring (2022) classify collaboration into horizontal (among competitors within an industry), vertical (across supply chains) and external (involving government sector organisations, NGOs, and academia, including research centres). Each type of collaboration contributes exclusively to the implementation of innovation towards CE.

To achieve the study's objective, it employs a methodical, structured strategy to synthesise the existing literature on CEI to identify and address key research gaps. The following three research questions are hence the focus of the study.

The review aims to investigate how collaborative ecosystems can accelerate the adoption of CE while ensuring environmental sustainability, economic viability and societal well-being to provide useful insights and strategic recommendations. The findings of this study will not only contribute to academia but also to industry leaders, legislators and researchers seeking to develop CE models through strategic alliances and interdisciplinary collaborations.

To address research questions regarding the drivers that enable CEI and the roles of each of the QH stakeholders in the implementation of innovation through collaboration. This systematic review study implements a systematic literature review (SLR) method, ensuring rigorous, structured guidelines, as proposed by Sauer and Seuring (2023). Thematic analysis plays a crucial role in SLRs by examining recurrent patterns of meaning and the framing and construction of concepts in the literature. It is especially appropriate when the review aims to investigate conceptual nuances, latent meanings or cross-cutting themes that emerge across several research studies (Vaismoradi et al., 2013; Braun and Clarke, 2021). To describe and group the drivers of the CEI, the review employs a thematic analysis framework as proposed by Naeem et al. (2023). This review's strategy aligns with earlier SLRs (Yu et al., 2022; Viscardi et al., 2023; Kamali Saraji et al., 2025), which prioritised a descriptive synthesis over a bibliometric analysis, as considered more appropriate to address the research aim.

The literature search used a systematically developed search string that incorporated relevant terms. (TITLE-ABS-KEY (public private collaborat* OR Collaborat* OR Actors) AND (“circular economy” OR regenerati* OR Circular) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (innovation) AND (open OR systemic OR collaborat* OR cocreat*). Initial search found 700 items (318 from Web of Science and 382 from Scopus). After a thorough screening procedure, 198 articles that were deemed irrelevant based on thorough title screening, abstracts and keywords were eliminated, and 278 duplicate articles were removed from the analysis process. A final dataset of 100 research articles was included in this study for analysis after five more papers unrelated to the research scope were also eliminated, and an additional 119 articles were excluded for not explicitly addressing CE.

The overarching scope of this review is defined by articles published in the field of management sciences, with a specific focus on supply chain management, operations management or CE perspectives. Research studies explicitly address collaboration in relation to CEI. The inclusion criteria include peer-reviewed journal articles published in English. Articles that are not empirical or that fail to discuss innovation in the context of CE explicitly are excluded, along with conference papers, book chapters and other non-peer-reviewed sources. Figure 1 presents the full review protocol, including the selection, screening and analysis stages.

The selected articles were synthesised using thematic analysis. The thematic approach is widely used to analyse qualitative data in systematic literature reviews; it entails identifying, categorising and reporting patterns/themes in the data to derive recurring insights (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis, as employed in this study, enabled the identification and synthesis of the drivers of circular economy innovation. This review adopts the thematic procedures proposed by Naeem et al. (2023).

The first phase of the thematic analysis process involves identifying the drivers. The Relevant quotes were transcribed from the selected papers, and researchers familiarised themselves with the extracted texts. The authors examined the content to identify key themes and concepts. Phase two involved a detailed examination of data. The authors identified recurring patterns and terms and labelled them as keywords. During coding, short phrases or words were assigned to segments of the extracted data that capture the data's core message and significance for the development of themes in phase three. Theme development was performed by organising code into meaningful groups of words to identify relationships between codes and themes or subthemes, which aligned with the study's research questions, which were finalised in phase four.

This study identifies and categorises CEI drivers, dividing them into categories and subcategories. The interpretation of these identified themes is provided in detail in the results and discussion section, fulfilling phase five of the thematic process. Figure 2 exemplifies all phases of the thematic process used to identify the drivers and relevant themes. Based on the collected evidence, phase six develops the conceptual model as the final output of the thematic process.

This study identifies and categorises CEI drivers into six main categories: collaborative and knowledge-sharing, governance and policy, consumer-centric, technological, organisational and economic. This study outlines that three of these categories function as transversal (collaborative and knowledge-sharing, organisational and economic), as these exhibit multiple, explicit interactions with the remaining driver categories and the central concept of CEI (Mahanty and Domenech, 2024).

In parallel with the thematic coding of CEI drivers, each article was further examined to determine which QH stakeholders, such as government, industry, academia and civil society, were associated with drivers. This involved analysing the frequency of mentions, the depth and nature of the stakeholders and roles described in the selected paper.

The sub-categories were derived from the frequency with which drivers appeared in the literature, the relevance of stakeholder groups to the driver, cross-referencing with relevant theories, and expert validation. A driver that appeared more frequently in the literature was mapped according to its relevance and impact on stakeholder groups, including government, academia, industry and civil society. Additionally, theoretical frameworks were examined to verify and align with driver subcategories within broader conceptual frameworks. As a result, this study's contribution remains unique since it analyses the significance of each QH stakeholder member in relation to several factors, in addition to improving the existing classification by further defining subcategories. Finally, the recognised categories and sub-categories of the identified drivers were reviewed by experts to ensure their significance and accuracy.

In response to answer RQ1, the analysis of this review identified six main categories of CEI drivers, including: (1) collaborative and knowledge-sharing drivers, (2) organisational drivers and (3) economic drivers, which are recognised as transversal drivers. On the other hand, the remaining drivers are identified as nontransversal drivers, comprising (4) governance and policy drivers, (5) consumer-centric drivers and (6) technological drivers. To respond to RQ2, this review study related the QH stakeholders to each driver category and analysed their respective roles in supporting or enabling CEI. Table 1 presents the details of driver categories, subcategories, driver codes and relevant QH stakeholders. To answer RQ3, the study examined the relationship among these drivers to strengthen effective collaboration among QH stakeholders and developed strategic recommendations to support that collaboration. Subsequent sections present the findings in response to each research question.

Transversal drivers are enablers that simultaneously influence multiple or all aspects of the CEI rather than functioning as independent categories. These drivers impact different dimensions of the CE system and play a foundational role in enabling other drivers to function effectively (Mahanty and Domenech, 2024). Among these, knowledge-sharing, organisational, and economic have been identified as transversal. These drivers serve as foundational pillars influencing broader system functions. For example, collaborative knowledge-sharing is not an isolated driver but essential for the diffusion of technology, effective governance and informed consumer behaviours (Reficco et al., 2018). Without collaboration, any of these drivers may not function and therefore, may not generate expected results (Danvers et al., 2023). For example, governance policies may be ineffective, technological advancements may not be widely adopted, and consumer awareness efforts may lack legitimacy, unless there is collaboration (Niang et al., 2022; Schultz et al., 2024). Similarly, organisational drivers such as adaptive leadership, coordination and strategic commitment are influenced by and influence governance and consumer-driven initiatives. Finally, economic drivers like subsidies, investments and pricing strategies shape nearly all aspects of CEI (Forastero, 2023).

Accordingly, these three driver categories are regarded not only as distinct drivers but also as cross-cutting enablers influencing multiple dimensions of CEI. These function as underlying mechanisms that enhance the impact of governance, technological and consumer-centric drivers.

Cooperation plays a crucial role in enabling the sharing of resources, the co-creation of CE strategies and knowledge exchange (Danvers et al., 2023). These dynamics demonstrate how collaboration among QH stakeholders supports progress towards CE goals. Notably, this type involves influences foster collaboration among various stakeholders.

This main category of drivers, comprising 22 drivers coded as CD-01 to CD-22, is divided into six sub-categories, based on the stakeholders' engagement in nature and depth of collaboration (Araújo and Franco, 2021; Senaratne et al., 2023). The first three sub-categories include multi-actor and stakeholder engagement, shared vision and value creation, and innovation spaces and facilities (Kuhlmann et al., 2023; Vilkė et al., 2020) mainly focusing on collaboration.

This category also includes the knowledge-sharing and collaboration subcategory, which primarily focuses on the exchange of ideas, resources and expertise among QH actors, namely, government, industry, academia and civil society, to foster CEI. These drivers facilitate the co-creation of innovative solutions, the sharing of best practices and the advancement of cutting-edge technologies that tackle issues connected to sustainability and circularity. These drivers' final three subcategories are institutional support for innovation, synergistic innovation, and knowledge-sharing and collaboration.

Multi-actor and stakeholder engagement is the first subcategory, which comprises drivers that concentrate on the fundamental interactions and collaborations among QH stakeholders. These drivers highlight how crucial it is to actively involve a variety of stakeholders in collaborative decision-making and project implementation. Cross-sectoral collaboration is the key driver in this sub-category (Calabrese et al., 2024). Collaborative innovation and co-creation, which promotes joint ideation and problem-solving among stakeholders, is another driver in this sub-category (Kasmi et al., 2022). Stakeholder engagement is the third driver under this sub-category (Palafox-Alcantar et al., 2021). Societal collaboration, which highlights the role of civil society in grassroots, is the next driver in this sub-category of CEI (Ezeudu and Kennedy, 2024). Collaborative trust, which refers to the trust required for sustainable partnerships across sectors, is the fifth driver in this sub-category (Hernandez Marquina et al., 2024). The ecosystem collaboration (Wielopolski and Bulthuis, 2023), which involves integrating entire ecosystems of stakeholders to create systemic CE solutions, is the sixth driver in this sub-category. Collaborative knowledge integration is the last and seventh driver in this sub-category (Danvers et al., 2023). These drivers jointly stress relationship-building and sustained stakeholder engagement.

Shared vision and value creation is the second subcategory under the collaborative and knowledge sharing drivers, which aims to align stakeholder objectives and create shared goals and values across the QH stakeholder system. Collaborative dynamic capabilities are the first driver in this subcategory (Schöggl et al., 2024). Shared value for innovation and co-creation is another driver in this subcategory (Little et al., 2023). It aligns different actors' goals for shared benefits, and this driver mainly focuses on mutual benefits derived from CE projects. Social co-creative vision is the third driver under this subcategory (Luukkonen et al., 2024). It empowers various stakeholders to develop a collective vision for a sustainable and circular future. Value integration for sustainable innovation is the next driver (Reficco et al., 2018), which denotes harmonising stakeholders' values to adoptive sustainable innovation. This promotes innovation by integrating values among QH members. Collective goals and the shared value chain are the fifth driver in this category (Kuhlmann et al., 2023). Cross-sector collaboration and value co-creation are the last drivers in this sub-category (Calabrese et al., 2024). This concentrates on supporting cross-sector efforts to co-create sustainable and CE solutions. These drivers are tied to the co-definition and pursuit of shared CE aspirations.

Innovative spaces and facilities are the third sub-category in the collaborative and knowledge-sharing drivers. Creating physical or virtual environments where QH stakeholders share resources, can interact and collaborate on innovation is the focus of this sub-category. This is observed as a critical enabler, transporting innovation through substantial and collaborative work, enhancing CE both physically and virtually. Furthermore, shared innovation facilities also grip noteworthy prominence in testing circular activities and assembling resources using modern and innovative technologies (Kasmi et al., 2022; Farrukh and Sajjad, 2024). Knowledge exchange/collaboration/open innovation facilities are the last driver in this sub-category (Perotti et al., 2025). This relates to developing and providing such platforms for open and transparent sharing of CE ideas. These drivers align together because they stress the infrastructural enablers that sustain and support the collaboration.

Knowledge sharing and an open innovation network are the fourth sub-category, which covers two drivers. Exchange of ideas is critical to CE development, as covered in the knowledge-sharing drivers (Hernandez Marquina et al., 2024). It also involves developing an open ecosystem that supports institutions to tackle barriers and challenges collaboratively.

Open network innovation is the second driver that supports the progression of inter-organisational platforms for collective problem-solving. The collaborative networks connect various stakeholders to foster shared innovation spaces and co-develop CE solutions (Eisenreich et al., 2021). The alignment of stakeholders to collectively design impact-driven CE solutions is the fifth sub-category, which emphasises integration across ideas, capabilities and resources.

Incubation, collaboration and value integration for innovation are the two key drivers in this sub-category. Incubation collaboration promotes interaction among stakeholders (such as academia, businesses and government) to accelerate and incubate CE-related startups and innovations (Millette et al., 2020). Value integration for innovative, diverse contributions for impactful and meaningful results (Reficco et al., 2018). It brings the knowledge and contributions of multidisciplinary stakeholders to produce creative, comprehensive CE solutions with higher impact and value.

Institutional support for innovation is the last sub-category under collaboration and knowledge-sharing drivers. The drivers related to this sub-category are public funding mechanisms and collaborative financing for the implementation of eco-innovation. According to Muzamwese et al. (2024), collaborative financing is an important driver that supports the effective collaboration of financial resources to facilitate the development and implementation of CE initiatives. Public-funded adoption of eco-innovation involved government-backed funding to encourage the broad adoption of circular practices, allowing companies and organisations to quicken their transition to circular business models.

This review study includes numerous case studies on stakeholder collaboration that implement CE strategies in the initiatives. For instance, Better Building Initiative (BBI), as highlighted by Wielopolski and Bulthuis (2023), enabled circular innovation through collaboration among various stakeholders in the construction sector. It created a functioning ecosystem that supports a proactive culture. The co-creation of solutions through demonstration sites and workshops provided an opportunity to establish trust, share expertise and enable experimentation. This collaboration of the various stakeholders is an example that driven significant industry transformation through incremental operational changes and scalable innovations for the advancement of CE.

The focus of organisational drivers, in the context of the QH framework, government, industry, academia and civil society, concentrates on internal organisational competencies and strategic adjustments needed to successfully adopt and implement CEI effectively. Organisations play a critical role in operationalising CE innovation through top-level dedication, strategic leadership, adaptive management and operational efficiency. This category comprises eight drivers, coded OD-01 to OD-08, which are divided into three subcategories: network/value-chain coordination, leadership and commitment and management and operations.

Management and operations comprise four drivers, and it's the first sub-category of the organisational drivers that are considered as essential enablers that support internal operational transformations and top-level leadership decisions. These drivers relate to operational flexibility, process efficiency and internal collaboration to support CEI. Institutional sustainable management practice is the first driver under this sub-category, which requires embedding sustainability within organisational practises at regular operations to be environmentally friendly (Bossink, 2002). This ensures the sustainability and enduring benefits of CEI for various QH stakeholders. Sustainable administration/management is the second driver that fosters collaboration (Sohal and De Vass, 2022).

Organisational operations, particularly operational adaptation and operational effectiveness, are the last two drivers in this sub-category. Organisations' ability to adapt their progressions to support circular economy aims and innovation is considered as operational adaptation (Brown et al., 2021). Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) stated that the enhancement of resource effectiveness and procedure optimisation to align with CE goals is the operational effectiveness. Leadership and commitment are recognised as the second subcategory in organisational drivers. This relates to strategic readiness and top management's commitment to implement CEI. Three key drivers underscore this sub-category: Organisational learning, top management commitment and adaptive management style, respectively. Organisations need to keep and learn from innovating or experiencing change to achieve better societal and organisational impact in the context of CEI. Top management commitment is the second driver under this subcategory (Santa-Maria et al., 2021). This is an important driver of sustainable and circular practices in the extant literature (Bhutto and Shaikh, 2024). It inspires top leadership to prioritise CE strategies and innovation. Organisations can embrace change, embed CE principles and integrate circularity into their practices and operations with the support of top-level management. Adopting a management style that encourages adaptable leadership for circular practices and CEI is the third driver in this category (Pieroni et al., 2019). The subcategory of leadership and commitment highlights the role of leadership that plays a crucial role in promoting sustainability initiatives and innovative culture.

The third sub-category under the organisational drivers is network coordination. The significance of external collaboration and goal alignment between stakeholders and organisations within the QH framework is emphasised in this sub-category. The network orchestration and cooperation, and cross-sector coordinated objectives are the two drivers under this subcategory. To achieve the CEI, network orchestration and cooperation associate diverse stakeholders within and outside of the organisation (Ermini et al., 2024). It mainly focuses on how stakeholders and organisations in the QH ecosystem collaborate for the advancement of CE. These drivers are crucial for achieving CE objectives that require effective collaboration beyond the organisation's boundaries.

The significant role of generational drivers witnessed through legal and policy frameworks in CEI strategies and clearly demonstrated in the city of Aguas de São Pedro's smart-city project (Leite and Ingstrup, 2022), where innovative parking solutions were co-created by Telefonica/Vivo and Ericsson to achieve the CE objectives.

Economic drivers are the last category in the transversal drivers, as suggested by the findings of this study. These drivers are recognised as financial incentives and economic mechanisms that drive CEI by enhancing returns for stakeholders. These drivers stress that financial incentives, regulatory support and funding mechanisms can influence institutions and businesses to adopt CE strategies. This category underlines the economic progress with sustainability objectives, confirming that CE implementation is both profitable and impactful. The economic drivers are divided into two sub-categories: incentives and funding, and sustainable value creation, with three drivers, coded as ED-01 to ED-03. The first subcategory is incentives, and funding is based on two drivers: financial incentives for circular value creation and fiscal and regulatory motivation. Financial rewards for organisations implementing CE models include tax exemptions and subsidies for the development of circular value, which help to offset the initial investment needed for circular transitions (Pollard et al., 2023a, b).

The other driver combines regulatory measures (such as extended producer responsibility) with financial policies (such as grants or tax relief) to drive circularity through both economic and compliance incentives (Forastero, 2023).

Sustainable value creation is the second subcategory under the economic drivers, which includes only one driver. This subcategory relates to the initiatives that share economic profitability with sustainability goals, ensuring that industry and QH stakeholders derive long-term value from circular practices. It emphasises the implementation of circularity into the business model itself rather than relying only on external incentives (Forastero, 2023).

A real example can be found in the study of Fernández-González et al. (2024) analysis how weak fiscal incentives and limited funding discouraged businesses from going green in Andalusia. The study highlighted that high financial risks deterred investment in sustainable practices. To change this, the study called for the government to enhance regulatory frameworks that internalise environmental costs through taxes and eco-standards. It also insisted that funding should reward not just profits, but also job formation and environmental benefits, making circular projects more appealing and viable.

The list of the main categories, sub-categories, codes and relevant stakeholders of transversal drivers is reported in Table 1.

Non-Transversal Drivers, on the other hand, are more specific and targeted enablers that contribute to CEI within a particular domain or specific stakeholder action area. These drivers tend to be function-, sector- or context-specific and often operate through direct pathways towards CEI (Tura et al., 2019). Our systematic analysis in this review identified and divided them into three categories: Governance and policy drivers, consumer-centric drivers and technological drivers, and recognised them as non-transversal and stakeholder-specific drivers.

This type of driver highlights how governance and policy frameworks lay the foundation for CEI, ensuring compliance with regulations and QH collaborations. This category is related to the e critical role of institutional frameworks, political support and government regulations in advancing CEI. These drivers stressed the creation and enforcement of policies and regulations and the adaptation to empower effective collaboration and innovation. Based on the thematic analysis method, the drivers were coded GP-01 to GP-14, and consist of 14 drivers, and are divided into three subcategories: policy and legal frameworks, political support and public sector roles, and public-driven initiatives.

Policy and legal frameworks comprise drivers that establish legal structures, regulatory mechanisms and adapt institutional rules to promote and enable CEI. Governance frameworks are the first driver associated with this sub-category (Droege et al., 2021). This must establish frameworks to direct QH collaboration in CE projects and offer overarching guidelines for CE activities among QH stakeholders. Incremental governance for CE is the second driver under this category (Kuhn et al., 2024). This driver supports adaptive governance to support progressive CE strategies. Policy development is another driver in this category, which enables flexible policies to meet dynamic CE needs (Toffanin and Jezic Von Gesseneck, 2022). The fourth driver under this category is legal reforms related to the modernisation of laws to enable circular (Fernández-González et al., 2024). Another related driver in this category is smart regulation, which introduces targeted measures to incentivise CE actions. These regulations are developed based on historical actions and are data-driven to encourage CE.

Another subcategory of governance and policy drivers is political support and public-sector roles. These drivers underline the influence of political actors and public organisations in implementing policies and promoting cross-sector collaboration. A total of six drivers were identified in this subcategory. These drivers relate to political leadership, the public sector and funding to support CE implementation. However, the first driver in this subcategory is political commitments (Engberg and Larsen, 2010).

This incorporates policymakers' promises to champion CE initiatives. The second driver in this subcategory is political support for urban regeneration (Engberg and Larsen, 2010). This focuses on urban areas, which are heavily influenced by modern industry. The third driver under this category is public sector procurement (Klein et al., 2020)

This is one of the most influential drivers: with high purchasing power and higher budgets under public sector programs, it utilises government purchasing power to drive demand for CE products and services from industry and academia. Another related driver in this subcategory is support from the public and political sectors, including general political and public support for enforcing CE initiatives and promoting circular products (Uusikartano et al., 2021). It encourages public funding for CEI. The fifth driver in this subcategory is local government management, which engages municipalities in fostering local CE-level innovation (Christensen, 2021). Though this driver may not have a national-level impact, it can trigger other drivers and bring about a national change. Political/territorial governance networks are the last driver in this subcategory (Niang et al., 2022). To advance CE, it emphasises the creation of territorial or regional political alliances.

Public-driven initiatives are linked to the final subcategory of governance and policy drivers. With an emphasis on jointly developing policies and practices for CE, this subcategory comprises drivers that encourage collaborative governance and collaboration among QH stakeholders. The first driver, collaborative policy support, ensures the inclusion of health quality stakeholders in policy formulation. Integrates stakeholder perspectives into policy formulation, aligning with the participatory governance approach (Sankaran, 2023). The following drivers, governance networks and innovative governance facilitate cross-sector governance partnerships and multiple governance bodies in implementing CEI (Niang et al., 2022; Schultz et al., 2024).

For instance, national policies and political interests influence practices, as Engberg and Larsen (2010) analysed in their study of the Danish Urban Regeneration Act. In their article, it is shown that legislative support plays a critical role in establishing a stable governance framework enabling municipalities to align strategies and allocate resources effectively for long-term regeneration.

These drivers highlight the role of consumer awareness, behaviour and engagement in driving innovation in CE by decisive demand for sustainable products and services. In order to achieve sustainable and circular products, the consumer's role has been deemed crucial (Bhutto and Shaikh, 2024). These drivers demonstrate how customer involvement, demand and awareness can encourage CE solution adoption and innovation. The six consumer-centric drivers coded as CC-01 to CC-06 are subdivided into two categories: awareness and influence, and engagement and solutions.

The first subcategory, awareness and influence, relates to drivers that emphasise increasing consumer knowledge and societal influence to promote CE strategies. Progressive consumer awareness is the first driver in this sub-category, which highlights CE benefits and increases understanding and education among consumers on sustainable practices (Huynh, 2022).

Social influence and awareness are the next drivers in this category, utilising social networks to promote CE adoption (Luukkonen et al., 2024). This also covers norms and societal pressure and driving consumers towards sustainable practices. Sustainability awareness is the last driver in this category. It focuses on understanding the broader sustainability context and endorses eco-conscious consumption patterns, which support CEI (Barreiro-Gen and Lozano, 2020).

Engagement and solutions are the next subcategory of consumer-centric drivers, and consumer-centred logistics solutions are the first driver in this subcategory (Hellström and Olsson, 2024). The development of supply chain models that prioritise consumer convenience and circularity is the focus of this driver. Consumer-driven co-creation is another driver in this subcategory (Lang et al., 2023). Organisations must engage with their consumers in the design of CE products/services that are impacted by this driver. Community engagement is the third driver in this subcategory. The broader local community participation in CE projects is encouraged and stressed in this driver (Luukkonen et al., 2024). Communication with customers via collaborative innovation and customised solutions is emphasised in these drivers.

The fashion industry is a real example where growing awareness among consumers becomes a quiet but powerful strength. For instance, digital technologies such as online platforms, blockchain and virtual 3D tools are not only transforming production but also reshaping consumers' understanding of the fashion sector's impact on the environment (Huynh, 2022). The organisations that are related to the fashion industry featured in the study observed that consumer sustainability awareness and new market patterns are pushing businesses to adopt rental, subscription and second-hand models. Thus, consumer awareness, strengthened by accessible digital information, guides firms towards CE practices.

Technological drivers are significant forces shaping CE and innovation. Within the QH framework, digital tools and research-driven advancements became possible through automation. These stress how technological capabilities, digital transformation, research and development (R&D) can foster effective collaboration among government, industry, academia and civil society to support CE initiatives. Four technological drivers, coded TD-01 to TD-04, are grouped into two subcategories. The first subcategory, technology-driven vision, includes drivers related to policies and the vision of organisations that support the implementation of digital technologies. The first driver in this subcategory is digital transformation, supporting the CE (Abusin et al., 2023). These are important tools and enablers, i.e. AI, IoT and blockchain, that positively drive CE. Furthermore, a tech-driven vision is a substantial factor connected to organisational vision and technological progress. This demonstrates the contribution of technology-oriented strategies towards the upgradation of CE (Abusin et al., 2023).

The second subcategory of drivers is research and development, which focuses on R&D activities. The drivers in this category include Eco-innovation R&D and public-funded eco-innovation. The first driver, eco-innovation R&D, focuses particularly on sustainable technologies (Häggmark and Elofsson, 2022). The next driver in this subcategory is public-funded eco-innovation, which refers to government-supported initiatives that encourage and emphasise eco-innovation. For instance, if the government supports the private sector in funding its R&D activities, it falls within the domain of public-funded eco-innovation.

The surplus food recovery sector is a strong case where technology is recognised as a key driver of circularity. As noted by Abusin et al. (2023), organisations are adopting modern production methods, such as greenhouse structures and water-efficient irrigation systems, to reduce waste and enhance efficiency, in line with the national food security strategy (2018–2023) and the Qatar national vision 2030. The study also highlighted that extending shelf life, monitoring food quality and improving redistribution are among the roles of sensing technologies. These developments validate the role of technology in enabling stakeholders to avoid waste at its source and strengthen their contributions to the circular economy.

The list of the main categories, sub-categories, codes and relevant stakeholders of non-transversal drivers is reported in Table 2.

Based on the evidence in the literature, it appears that QH stakeholders play different roles in advancing CEI for each driver. In some cases, they act as primary stakeholders, the initiators who bear the primary responsibility for triggering specific drivers. In other cases, they are secondary stakeholders, the enablers who provide the supportive influence required to scale CEI initiatives.

The overall CEI dynamics can be understood through a conceptual framework that accounts for the different stakeholders' roles in advancing the circular economy and captures the interdependence among driver categories and their impacts on the CEI (Figure 3).

This representation shows an ecosystem in which each member of the QH stakeholders plays primary and secondary roles within the specific driver categories to facilitate and enable the circular transition. For example, the government is identified as the primary actor and plays a role in providing governance, and policy is responsible for regulations and public procurement. Civil society acts as the primary driver of societal and behavioural change regarding circularity, while academia takes responsibility by providing knowledge on CE and offering CE frameworks. Similarly, the industry has a responsibility to implement circular business models, knowledge sharing and participation with other actors in digital innovation.

As to secondary stakeholders, civil society leads in consumer behaviour and participates in social innovation. Industry acts as a secondary by ensuring compliance with CE-oriented models. The government provides supporting policies, while academia supports them through research on CE finance.

Furthermore, the framework distinguishes between the transversal drivers (collaborative and knowledge-sharing, organisational and economic). These act as foundational enablers that cut across all sectors and create the necessary environment through funding, management commitment, collaboration and knowledge sharing, enabling other specific drivers to function. Conversely, non-transversal drivers (governance and policy, technological and consumer-centric) operate as domain-specific, direct and targeted impact on CEI, for instance, regulatory compliance, enabling R&D and digital innovation, and targeting behavioural change.

Several strategic actions must be taken to strengthen collaboration among QH stakeholders and enhance CEI. First, it is critical to set up multi-stakeholder governance platforms. Governments and business leaders ought to establish cooperative governance networks that include academia, business, and civil society in order to jointly formulate policies, exchange best practices and harmonise regulatory frameworks for the implementation of CE (Kaya et al., 2021). Since normative pressures and regulatory mechanisms influence stakeholder interactions and organisational behaviours throughout CE transitions, institutional theory offers a solid basis for this strategy (Do et al., 2022). Additionally, according to collaboration and network theory, network governance structures like knowledge-sharing consortia and public-private partnerships improve group activity and lessen coordination failures (Baah et al., 2023).

Second, to encourage CEI and adoption, policy and financial provision systems must be strengthened. To encourage widespread adoption, fiscal measures such as tax breaks for circular business models and requirements for sustainable products in public procurement should be formalised. The practices of CE and innovation can be improved through government investments in financial incentives, subsidies and public–private funding mechanisms (Shaikh et al., 2023). The proposed QH model aligns with stakeholder theory by framing government, industry, academia and civil society as interdependent actors. This theory helps explain how stakeholder engagement (CD-03) and public-sector procurement (GP-08) shape CEI (Beck and Ferasso, 2023).

Third, the development of adequate knowledge-sharing and technological infrastructure substantially enhances innovation and CE practices. It is crystal clear that investment in digital transformation and other technological activities, such as blockchain and innovation platforms, can be beneficial for circular business models (Wielopolski and Bulthuis, 2023). The effectiveness of cross-sector partnerships (CD-01) and collaborative knowledge integration (CD-07) is supported by network governance models that enhance CE implementation (Fehrer et al., 2022; Köhler et al., 2022). According to Systems Thinking, knowledge-sharing systems should be created to incorporate diverse expertise, encourage interdisciplinary creativity and provide feedback loops that improve learning across fields. This viewpoint is essential for comprehending how cooperation promotes structural changes in the adoption of CE (Wielopolski and Bulthuis, 2023). Fourth, it is about empowering consumer participation. These enhance behavioural change and make the market more robust in producing CE products (Vidal-Ayuso et al., 2023). Lastly, the creation of performance indicators and KPIs positively enhances CE.

This review study enriches the literature on CEI by providing both theoretical and practical implications.

This review study expands theoretical discussions by utilising stakeholder theory, system thinking, network theory and institutional theory to clarify how CEI emerges from the collaboration between QH stakeholders and interdependent driver categories.

Based on the stakeholder theory, mapping various drivers' categories between primary and secondary QH stakeholders offers theory-based insights into how innovation is not only an industrial output but the result of multi-actor collaboration and interdependencies, going beyond the conventional view of stakeholders as external pressure groups.

In line with systems thinking and network theory, the recognition of transversal and non-transversal drivers is consistent with the CE literature, where all transversal drivers serve as the foundational connective tissue of the ecosystem. Prevailing that transversal drivers are enablers, such as collaborative trust, organisational readiness and financial incentives, are necessary for technological interventions, sustainable governance and societal and behavioural change. The framework also provides a systemic clarification for why technological solutions repeatedly fail to scale without holistic ecosystem support.

With respect to the institutional theory, the results of this study show that governance drivers and consumer-based drivers do not operate in isolation, highlighting that external institutional mandates are insufficient for CEI without internal organisational legitimacy and inter-organisational networks. This implies that institutional pressures do not simply appear as constraints; instead, they constitute an active system that must be mediated through industry compliance and academic validation to bring about systemic change and readiness.

For industry practitioners, the research findings underscore that circular technology investments alone yield insufficient results because they often lead to failed implementations. The research indicates that organisations need their top management to establish internal collaborative dynamic capabilities before they can acquire external technical solutions. Organisations should develop adaptive leadership approaches that enable their teams to work with external QH actors to minimise the typical barriers that circular business model adoption creates. Businesses need to join open innovation networks and industrial symbiosis programs because these collaborations help SMEs with limited resources advance their development. Managers who view competitors and other sectors as collaborative partners in their shared value chain can use shared innovation facilities to reduce R&D expenses and risks.

However, the review also offers managers a practical guide to determine which drivers require coordinated, cross-stakeholder strategies (transversal) and which can be addressed directly (non-transversal). It enables better prioritisation of internal capabilities, inter-organisational collaborations and governance practices that are important in the implementation of innovations to advance the CE.

The finding suggests that industry and governments should take action to build stronger collaborative networks, enhance technological readiness and establish strategies for financial alignment and consumer participation. The study offers policymakers and decision-makers crucial knowledge they need to develop effective strategies for transitioning their businesses from linear models to circular economy models.

The study highlights civil society's role as an active actor in advancing the circular economy. Our results encourage the inclusion of societal actors in the co-creation of CE solutions. It highlighted the social benefits, such as environmental sustainability, long-term economic resilience, resource efficiency and aligning with sustainable development goals (SDGs).

However, civil society is an active actor in market trends through behavioural changes rather than only a passive recipient of goods. It emphasises the need for actions through educational campaigns, community engagement initiatives and sustainability awareness. Society can exert normative pressure on business to adopt and promote circular practices by empowering consumers with transparent information and digital tools and improving the environmental quality and societal well-being.

This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the key drivers enabling CEI. Addressing RQ1, the paper identifies and classifies six main categories. The first three driver categories: collaborative and knowledge sharing, organisational and economic, are identified as transversal enablers that influence broader system functioning. In contrast, the last three categories of the drivers: governance and policy, technological and consumer-centric are identified and classified as non-transversal drivers that exert a more direct influence on CEI outcomes. Whereas, responding to RQ2 by examining the specific roles of each QH stakeholders (government, industry, academia and civil society) across these categories to foster effective collaboration and accelerate the transition towards the CE. The findings underscore that QH stakeholders play different roles in these drivers and categorise them as primary and secondary. Primary stakeholders influence CEI through regulation, R&D, innovation implementation and strategic alignment, while secondary stakeholders play a crucial role in advocacy, policy support and behaviour change.

RQ3 is addressed by offering strategic recommendations that emerge from the relationship between drivers and QH stakeholders. These include strategic collaboration among stakeholders supported by feedback systems and shared platforms to bridge knowledge gaps, ensure policy coherence and overcome resource limitations.

The results of this review highlighted that CEI is determined by various factors, including collaborative, governance and policy, consumer-centric, technological, organisational, innovation and knowledge-sharing, and economic drivers. Each category of these drivers stresses how collaboration and all stakeholders are interconnected, technical innovation, financial incentives and policy alignment are necessary for a successful CE transition.

Similarly, collaboration is seen as a protagonist that fosters cross-sector ties and information integration. To close gaps and spur CEI, specific strategic interventions are required to address low stakeholder alignment, fragmented policy implementation and financial hurdles.

Several research gaps persist to be addressed to improve collaboration among various stakeholders and implementation innovation towards CE, and these gaps can be overcome only through empirical studies. This review study offers some insights for the future research agenda. First, it is significant to investigate how effective collaborative governance models promote sustained collaboration among stakeholders in CE. To recognise best practices for multi-stakeholder governance, future research could examine which governance models perform best across various regional and industrial contexts and provide comparative evaluations.

Second, to understand how cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), the internet of Things (IoT), blockchain and big data analytics can improve waste management, supply chain traceability and closed-loop production systems, it will be important to investigate the digital and technological enablers for CE. Future studies should assess how these technologies can enhance operational effectiveness and promote the widespread adoption of CE.

Third, one of the most important areas of research is the continued examination of economic and financial incentives for CE adoption. To learn more about how financial incentives affect business and customer behaviour towards circular products, more research is needed. Future studies should evaluate the long-term economic viability of circular business models and CE.

Despite the gaps still existing, by defining a conceptual framework linking different drivers and stakeholders, this review contributes to deepening the knowledge on the CEI dynamics.