Driving circular change: knowledge management motivations among designers in the Australian building industry

Circular economy (CE) has been identified as a potential solution to manage the growing problem of construction and demolition (C&D) waste, which accounts for at least 30% of global waste generation (Soto-Paz et al., 2023). It enhances conservation of natural resources, minimises emissions and improves public health and wellbeing (Swarnakar et al., 2025) revealing economic, environmental and social benefits of CE in C&D waste management (WM). Despite the positive impacts of CE implementation in C&D WM, it is not adequately practised in managing C&D waste in the Australian construction industry. This is evident in the National Waste and Resource Recovery Report 2024 by Pickin et al. (2025), which revealed that the Australian construction sector generates 29 Mt of waste annually and accounts for around 39% of the country's waste generation.

Existing studies investigated the potential reasons for limited CE adoption in the Australian construction industry and identified a lack of knowledge as one of the three top-most barriers (Shooshtarian et al., 2023). This highlights the necessity for CE knowledge management (KM) in the construction industry to manage C&D waste (Oluleye et al., 2022). CE KM extends beyond mere implementation of CE practices for C&D WM, and it is a cyclical approach comprising CE knowledge creation, acquisition, documentation, application, evaluation and sharing (Nadeetharu et al., 2025; Shehzad et al., 2024). Having CE KM can make the implementation of CE practices proactive, as it occupies the practitioners with a systematic approach for the effective identification, sharing and application of knowledge (Yurdaanik-Eskiyerli and Dondrup, 2025). Thus, strategic KM based on KM cycles is one of the most important drivers for CE implementation (Atiku, 2020).

Despite its potential to drive innovation and improve CE implementation in C&D WM, CE KM implementation remains underexplored, leaving construction professionals with limited awareness of its adoption (Swarnakar et al., 2024). Therefore, CE KM should focus on individual behaviours of the stakeholders rather than their organisational topologies, as different stakeholders behave differently according to the various knowledge networks in which they are embedded (Jiang et al., 2025). Furthermore, since knowledge fundamentally resides within people, investigations on motivations for KM should focus on the microlevel (individual level) rather than at the macrolevel (organisational level) (Javernick-Will, 2012).

Even though improving CE knowledge contributes to enhancing C&D WM (Swarnakar et al., 2025), it is not sufficiently practised in the construction industry to enhance WM practices (Nadeetharu et al., 2025; Oluleye et al., 2022). Also, it was revealed that the current implementation of CE practices for C&D WM is based on self-interest and personal knowledge and is mostly reactive (Nadeetharu et al., 2025). Lack of motivation in KM is a prominent reason hindering this uptake (Atiku, 2020). Furthermore, Swarnakar et al. (2025) also conveyed that despite the importance, construction research often neglects the role of individuals' motivations in KM, referring specifically to knowledge sharing. Among a variety of professionals involved in construction, designers have the highest potential to contribute to minimising C&D waste, considering their early involvement in decision-making processes of the construction projects (Wang et al., 2019). For example, a recent study by Besiktepe and Gurgun (2025) highlighted the need for design professionals to acquire CE knowledge to support CE implementation in both project design and delivery stages. Further, designers can influence clients' decisions on CE implementation and inform contractors of associated risks and benefits, thereby promoting their engagement in C&D WM (Nadeetharu et al., 2025). This underscores designers' central role in CE adoption.

Yet, there is a dearth of studies focused on designers to examine motivations for CE KM regarding C&D WM, which limits effective uptake of CE practices for managing C&D waste. For instance, existing studies examining motivations have predominantly focused on manufacturing (De Marchi and Di Maria, 2020; Zhang et al., 2021), broader organisational context (Bertassini et al., 2021; Ly and Ly, 2025) and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) (Marrucci et al., 2022b; Al Rawashdeh et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2025), with limited attention to individual-level considerations. Moreover, the transferability of these findings to the construction and C&D WM context remains insufficiently examined. This gap is particularly significant given the unique characteristics of the built environment, including prolonged project lifecycles, involvement of multiple stakeholders across different project phases and the distinct nature of the outputs. These characteristics underscore the need for more subtle investigations into the motivations driving designers to manage CE knowledge regarding C&D WM, where professional factors can shape the KM activities. To address the above gap, this study examines the motivations (Objective 01) and the underlying factors of motivations (Objective 02) among designers to manage CE knowledge regarding C&D WM in the Australian building construction industry. The upcoming sections describe the literature review, research methodology, research findings, triangulation of findings (discussion), followed by conclusions, limitations and further research directions.

Given the absence of studies examining motivations of CE KM within C&D WM contexts, this study extends its inquiry to CE KM motivations identified in other domains. The literature addressing motivations for CE KM remains limited, reflecting the emergent nature of this research area. Although general motivations for KM can partially be transferred to the CE KM context, important distinctions arise, particularly with respect to the nature and type of knowledge involved, as cognitive constraints can arise depending on the type of knowledge (Chembessi, 2023). Similarly, motivations underpinning the implementation of CE for C&D WM can offer some relevant insights. However, motivations for implementing CE practices differ from motivations to manage CE knowledge, as KM extends beyond CE implementation motivations by re-accumulating, re-internalising and re-sharing knowledge beyond mere application (Ul-Durar et al., 2023). Accordingly, Table 1 provides an overview of motivations for CE KM as identified in the existing body of literature, highlighting their sector-country contexts.

As shown in Table 1, current motivations for CE KM discussed in existing literature are centred towards a few industries, like manufacturing and mainly discussed for organisational contexts. Moreover, they have focused on a few KM aspects without considering a comprehensive set of KM activities in the KM cycle. Upcoming paragraphs discuss the identified motivations in detail, highlighting their limitations.

The requirement to enhance CE knowledge has been identified as a motivation for CE KM in existing studies (Ghinoi et al., 2020; De Marchi and Di Maria, 2020; Marrucci et al., 2022b). This is mainly centred on knowledge acquisition (Marrucci et al., 2022b), creation (De Marchi and Di Maria, 2020) and sharing (Ghinoi et al., 2020). Despite being identified as a motivation, Ghinoi et al. (2020) stated that individuals do not consider this as a motivation unless they engage with multiple stakeholders, where knowledge sharing is an important factor affecting their reputation; findings derived from a case study conducted in Italy. In contrast, Atiku (2020) stated that there are self-motivated individuals who improve their CE knowledge as they are interest to know-how (skills), know-why (system thinking) and caring why (self-motivated creativity). However, these findings are limited to a literature-based approach, where empirical investigations are needed to further validate. Moreover, in an organisational context, organisations are motivated to get new knowledge based on the top management commitment to improve the CE knowledge of their employees (Al Rawashdeh et al., 2025). This is identified as a potential avenue to enhance organisational performance, and therefore, management seeks to enhance employees' absorptive capacity as a CE KM mechanism (Marrucci et al., 2022a). However, motivation to enhance CE knowledge depends on the absorptive capacity of the firm, where the assimilation capacity of scientific and market knowledge needs to be enhanced to improve the firm's capability (Audretsch and Fiedler, 2024). This ability to improve organisational performance has been identified in several studies as a motivation for CE KM (Bertassini et al., 2021; Chembessi, 2023; Marrucci et al., 2022a). Bertassini et al. (2021) indicated that this CE performance of the organisation can improve through a set of combined knowledge, skills and attitudes of employees to solve problems in accordance with CE principles. Therefore, improving individual knowledge is the underlying pathway of organisations to improve performance.

Competitive advantage to organisations is another motivational factor for CE KM (Audretsch and Fiedler, 2024; Bertassini et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021, 2025). Zhang et al. (2025) conveyed that organisations are focused to attract competitive advantage through knowledge sharing, while Bertassini et al. (2021) explained that it is achievable through learning and exchanging knowledge. Further, CE implementation leads to a competitive advantage and is a motivation for the use of digital technologies (João et al., 2025). While the use of digital technologies can manage knowledge, their study only acknowledges competitive advantage as a motivation for using digital technologies, not for KM. Furthermore, building intellectual capital for organisations has been identified as a motivation for the dissemination of CE knowledge. KM leads to introducing new CE-oriented technologies to organisations (Audretsch and Fiedler, 2024), which is a positive contributor to adapting to changing market demands (Yurdaanik-Eskiyerli and Dondrup, 2025). Further, Zhang et al. (2021) revealed that KM leads to competitive advantage through innovation potential; therefore, it can be a motivation. This innovation and KM can contribute to improving the quality of products (Ul-Durar et al., 2023) allowing tracing of new products, which contributes to closing the resource loop (De Marchi and Di Maria, 2020).

The ability to contribute to sustainable development has also been identified as a motivation for CE KM (Ly and Ly, 2025; Marfu et al., 2025). According to De Marchi and Di Maria (2020), the goal for environmental sustainability is a motivation for knowledge acquisition and KM in the manufacturing context, where KM is an unintended benefit of technology adoption. Further, Bhatnagar et al. (2026) identified that motivation to promote sustainable development goals as a factor driving CE education. Similarly, CE reduce environmental impact through reduced usage of natural resources, reduce the environmental burden of waste, optimise resources and encourage material resilience (Ul-Durar et al., 2023). Therefore, the authors identified eco-innovation (process of creation, development and optimisation of resources for the differentiation or continuous improvements of green products and CE) as a motivation to improve CE knowledge (Ul-Durar et al., 2023). In contrast, Marrucci, Iannone et al. (2022) imparted that despite the ability for eco-innovation being a driver for knowledge acquisition, it is still exceptional instead of being a common inspirational factor. Further, Yurdaanik-Eskiyerli and Dondrup (2025) also conveyed that CE KM is identified as a responsive action to environmental changes rather than intrinsic care for sustainability.

Intention to better serve customers is also identified as a motivation for CE KM (De Marchi and Di Maria, 2020), which in turn increases business opportunities (João et al., 2025). Similarly, Bertassini et al. (2021) also conveyed that the communities' desire for a more sustainable ecosystem motivates CE KM, which is a motivation following extrinsic requirements. Further, the authors disclosed that universities mainly consider this as a motivation to manage CE knowledge and believe CE KM can contribute to advancing societies in terms of sustainability. In addition, Ly and Ly (2025) also highlighted the need for public services and societal welfare as contributing factors to CE KM. However, Tan et al. (2022) explained that this positive perception towards the public and the requirement to do good leads to CE knowledge application, mainly by leaders of business instead of wider professional groups.

Despite the underscoring of the above motivations, studies dedicated to exploring the motivations that contribute to managing CE knowledge among designers in the construction industry to enhance C&D WM are very limited. Furthermore, the above studies are more centred towards acquisition, sharing and application of knowledge, while motivations for other aspects of the KM cycle (evaluation, documentation, creation) are overlooked. Therefore, this study contributes to filling this gap. The next section describes the data collection and analysis methodologies followed in this regard.

This study adopted an exploratory sequential mixed-method design, which is explained by (Creswell and Clark, 2023) as a suitable methodology to expand and assess the qualitative findings using quantitative methods to determine the extent to which qualitative findings are generalised to a wider population. This method is considered appropriate considering the paucity of studies discussing motivations for CE KM in the construction context, where initial in-depth investigations are required and followed by explanations from the broader population. The scope of this study is confined to commercial building projects due to data collection feasibility, as the majority of current CE initiatives are concentrated within the commercial sector. Two-stage data collection was conducted, as shown in Figure 1, comprising Phase 01 - Preliminary interviews and Phase 02 - Questionnaire survey.

Judgmental sampling was used for data collection in both phases as it is considered ideal for exploratory research design, low cost and less time-consuming. Further, it allows deliberate inclusion of the most appropriate participants selected against pre-determined criteria to obtain in-depth content-related data that cannot be obtained from other methods (Taherdoost, 2016). Given that CE is an emerging research domain with a limited pool of industry experts, judgmental sampling was deemed appropriate to ensure a rich and diverse representation of participants across various design professions. Prospective professional groups for the two data collection phases were identified based on Building Designers Association of Australia (BDAA) (2024) and Royal Institute of British Architects (2020) website and existing studies conducted for C&D WM in the design phase (Wang et al., 2019). The professionals include architects, engineers, CE consultants, project managers, ESD consultants cost estimators and contract administrators. The participants were identified through publicly available websites and LinkedIn profiles.

Semi-structured expert interviews were conducted to examine the motivations among designers, as the method has the feasibility to obtain rich and multiple perspectives, while allowing for probing follow-up questions (Ahlin, 2019). Design experts with at least five years of experience in the construction industry and at least two years of experience in CE or C&D WM were considered eligible to participate. 19 interviews were conducted, permitting for data saturation. Data saturation occurred at the sixteenth interview, as no new themes or explanations defining themes have emerged beyond this point. However, three more interviews were conducted to confirm the saturation point. This is aligned with the findings of Hennink and Kaiser (2022), who revealed that studies using empirical data collected via interviews reach saturation within 9–17 interviews. The potential participants were initially contacted through emails or LinkedIn with a Plain Language Statement (PLS) describing the study, consent form and withdrawal of consent form. The Zoom platform was used to conduct the interview and recorded with the written approval of the interviewees. The auto-generated Zoom transcript of the interview was manually checked for validity. Participants were questioned regarding their background information, motivations driving design professionals to manage CE knowledge, followed by questions to explain the underlying reasons for their answers. Explanations were provided to participants regarding CE, C&D WM and KM processes at the beginning of the interviews to ensure their understanding of the context. Reflexive thematic analysis was used for data analysis, considering its flexibility and iterative nature, which allows for the systematic identification and interpretation of patterns and meanings in qualitative data, acknowledging the researcher's active role in interpretation (Braun and Clarke, 2019).

A Likert Scale questionnaire survey was next conducted as it is widely used in social science contexts and is easy to administer (Opele, 2021). It included questions to determine the profession and experience of participants, followed by statements regarding motivations derived from preliminary interviews (Figure 3). Participants rated each motivation on a 1–5 scale based on its significance for managing CE knowledge regarding C&D WM. Designers with at least one year of construction experience are considered eligible to participate in the survey to obtain a broader perspective for motivations covering professionals with varied experience levels. The minimum sampling requirement was determined considering the analysis methods mentioned in Figure 1. According to Hair et al. (2013), a minimum absolute sample size of 50 observations and a desired ratio of five observations per variable is recommended in EFA. Since this study consisted of 20 variables (motivations), a minimum sample of 100 responses is required.

As part of the survey, 2,435 questionnaires (prepared using the Qualtrics XM platform) were sent to potential participants directly via LinkedIn and email with a PLS describing the study. To ensure participants' understanding of the contexts, definitions of key terminologies were provided in the questionnaire. In addition, the questionnaire was included in the June 2025 edition of the Engineers Australia Newsletter and posted to the group “Planet Ark's Australian Circular Economy Hub”, upon the offer and approval of an authorised member of the group. Though the response rate is difficult to conclude based on the approach we followed, 215 eligible participants attempted the questionnaire, while only 131 fully completed responses were obtained. Among them, 128 responses were identified as relevant to the focus of the questionnaire. Three irrelevant responses from infrastructure-related professionals and academics were eliminated.

Mean, standard deviation and RII were used to examine the significance of data as the methods are widely used in Likert-Scale data to identify the importance of observations (Opele, 2021). The authors further recommended RII over mean for ranking items as it uses weighted frequencies of responses rather than assuming equal intervals between Likert-scale data, thereby respecting the ordinal nature of Likert-scale data. Internal consistency of data was next assessed using Cronbach's alpha, where a value greater than 0.7 indicates that the data are reliable for analysis (Hair et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2019; Watkins, 2018).

Following the guidelines by Hair et al. (2013) and Howard and Henderson (2023), with cut-off values stated in Figure 1, EFA was next conducted to determine the underlying factor structure explaining motivations for CE KM regarding C&D WM among designers. It is a widely accepted multivariate technique to allow unrestricted estimation of underlying parameters (factors) describing a set of items, which is in contrast to confirmatory factor analysis, where restricted estimation of factors is obtained (Widaman and Helm, 2023). Principal axis factoring (PAF) was used for factor extraction, as this method is not impacted by the normality or non-normality of the data, which is in contrast to maximum likelihood, which is sensitive to the normality of the data (Watkins, 2018). Direct Oblimin under the oblique rotation method was selected for factor rotation as it allows factors to correlate and is suitable for small to medium sample sizes (Fabrigar et al., 1999).

The reliability of the underlying factor structure was determined using Cronbach's alpha, with a value exceeding 0.7, which indicates internal consistency and reliability. Factor loading is also considered an indicator of reliability. “Cronbach's alpha scale if an item deleted” is also used to identify whether removing an item from a factor structure could increase reliability (Kim et al., 2020). Considering the sample size of the study, which is 128 (∼120), a factor loading of 0.5 is recommended for practical significance (Hair et al., 2013). Convergent validity examines the extent to which items designed to measure the same underlying construct (factor) demonstrate strong interrelations, thereby confirming that they adequately represent the intended construct (Park and Kim, 2021). Further to the authors, an underlying factor comprising all items with a coefficient of 0.5 or above is considered to have convergent validity.

Table 2 shows the demographic information of the experts who participated in preliminary interviews. The participants had a minimum of eight years of experience in the construction industry and at least two years of experience in CE or C&D WM.

The demographic information of respondents who participated in Phase 02-questionnaire survey based on their industry experience, CE experience and C&D WM experience is shown in Figure 2.

The respondents were comprised of 29 cost estimators, 26 project managers, 23 architects, 16 engineers, 14 CE specialists, 14 ESD consultants and 6 contract administrators, ensuring a vivid representation of multiple professionals in a design team of a construction project. According to Figure 2, 62% of respondents had more than five years of construction industry experience.

20 motivations impacting designers at the individual level to manage CE knowledge regarding C&D WM were identified from preliminary interviews and presented in Figure 3. The length of the bar corresponds to the number of experts' stances on each motivation, and an asterisk (*) is used to indicate the new motivations identified in the C&D WM context.

According to Figure 3, M07 emerged as a salient motivation, with more than half of the interviewees (53%) identifying it as a key motivation for CE KM. Interviewees reveal this ability twofold: 1) Competitive advantage in personal branding/marketing (PI-01, PI-13, PI-19) and 2) Competitive advantage for design organisations in securing job opportunities (PI-05, PI-06, PI-12). For instance, PI-01 revealed that learning makes the professionals competitive, and therefore, it leads professionals to acquire new knowledge, which in turn can be used in design for WM-related decisions and leads to financial savings. However, in contrast, PI-18 indicates that it is not a motivation consequent to the prevailing characteristics of the Australian construction industry, where formal qualifications are afforded comparatively low priority, suggesting the need for future research to investigate reasons attributing to giving low priority for formal qualifications. Overall, M07 drives more due to organisational level reasons, where 6 out of the 10 interviewees commented that it motivates them to share CE knowledge with clients (PI-15), document the success stories of C&D WM (PI-04) and use (apply) the existing CE knowledge in design to minimise waste with creative thinking (PI-12).

M13 is a new motivation identified for CE KM in the C&D WM sector. This can be due to the nature of the construction projects, which are fragmented and complex, involving multiple stakeholders, thus requiring exemplary leadership for innovation more than industries with stable output structures and systems. This (M13) is highlighted as an individual-led (21%) and as an organisational-led (42%) motivational item for managing CE knowledge. For example, organisations consider getting leadership credit for CE implementation and C&D WM (PI-04). In addition, PI-14 highlighted that organisations consider setting examples, which led to faster progress in CE with more CE implemented projects and outcomes tied to C&D WM. Thus, consider being involved in documenting and sharing knowledge (PI-04). Further, “designers are motivated by the desire to (…) author projects and (…) to provide leadership around projects that can demonstrate that kind (waste) of reduction” (PI-15). Therefore, it is a motivation to share their CE knowledge and experience (PI-10). M10 is highlighted by 37% of participants as a motivation, both at the individual and organisational levels. PI-09 states that “they [design organisations] can get [a] good social image by saying that, Oh! We have done this before, and we are doing this again.” Besides, M01 is identified as a motivational factor to manage CE knowledge related to C&D WM. However, such commitment is more frequently demonstrated by architects, sustainability consultants, environmental consultants and CE specialists, rather than being consistently evident across other professional groups within construction project design teams.

M04 is revealed as a by 42% of respondents. This is discussed as a motivation at the individual level following the gravity from the organisation to contribute to sustainable development (31.5%) and at the organisational level following the requirements of the government and to lower the environmental footprint (31.5%). PI-10 considers this as a unique motivation for CE KM regarding C&D waste to construction industry professionals, indicating the construction industry as the “worst polluters (…) adding so much carbon footprint on the planet (…)”. In addition, M09 is identified as a motivation distinct from M04. It is specifically associated with First Nations cultural significance (PI-19) and heritage-listed sites (PI-10) and explained as a unique motivation for C&D WM in the Australian context. This motivation is strongly driven by regulations related to the knowledge preservation of culturally significant built assets.

M17 is stressed by 31.5% as a unique motivation for CE KM regarding C&D WM, which can be due to the building standards and lengthy approval processes prevailing in the construction industry. PI-04 identified that this as the basis for current documentation processes regarding CE knowledge, which is most driven by external requirements. PI-19 and PI-14 revealed that the requirements for compliance with the National Code of Construction (NCC) as a motivation for CE KM. The respondents further stated that NCC is required to undertake changes and modifications to allow for CE implementation, as the current status does not clearly guide CE implementation to manage C&D waste (PI-02 and PI-15). This is an important future consideration for the Australian policymakers regarding upgrades to NCC. M14 was also identified as a unique motivation in C&D WM context by around 16% of participants. PI-03 stated it as the biggest motivation of all, claiming that “(…) green certifications are often linked to bigger reporting requirements (…)” and revealed that KM helps to grasp the knowledge for effective reporting. Moreover, M02 is revealed by 10.5% of participants as a motivation, considering CE as a fast-progressing trend in the world. While this emphasises the requirement of organisations to progress, it is also highlighted as an individual-led motivation by 26.5% of the respondents, conveying professional values, enhancing their knowledge (M12), which serves as a motivation for acquiring, applying, sharing and evaluating knowledge.

M03 was identified as a motivation for the application of CE knowledge by PI-14. It is a future-oriented approach focusing on improving the quality of the buildings. However, PI-02 commented that this is mainly driven by the client's attitude towards CE, which is considered CE as low quality, thus can be a demotivation if the client's understanding is limited. Further, PI-08 mentioned that engineers often have the same perspective and “(…) they are sceptical about whether it is going to be strong enough, or last long enough (…)”. M16 is mentioned by 16% of interviewees, which can act as a motivation to perform the entire KM cycle. PI-15 emphasised that design organisations must realise the impacts they generate through the CE implementation, as such understanding provides a clear purpose for their engagement. The interviewee further highlights the pivotal role of KM in providing a purpose by presenting the broader impacts of CE initiatives in C&D WM evident. M19 serves as a motivation for CE KM according to by 16% of the interviewees. Further, CE KM practices like documentation and evaluation ensure M08 and can serve as a unique motivation for C&D WM, according to 10.5% of participants. This can be due to the inherent risks associated with construction projects compared to other industries. As stated by PI-04, “they need it (KM) in order to speed up their process, understand the cost implications and understand the risks. That motivates them to document what's happening, whether they do that or not is a completely different question.” Similarly, M18 and M15 to the organisations through CE KM are revealed as unique motivations by 26.5 and 16% respectively. Overall, these internal benefits to the organisations serve as motivations among designers to manage CE knowledge regarding C&D WM.

Cronbach's alpha value of motivations reported 0.906, indicating that the data are highly internally consistent. Table 3 provides the ranking of motivations based on the results of the descriptive statistics and RII values.

Table 3 shows that all 20 motivations had a mean value of more than 3.00 and a RII value of more than 0.658. Accordingly, all the respondents believe that all these are critical and serve as motivations among designers to manage CE knowledge regarding C&D waste. Among them, two motivations were reported to be more critical, with a RII value > 0.8. Therefore, this study reveals that M01 and M02 are the two critical motivations needed to empower designers in the Australian construction industry to manage CE knowledge regarding C&D WM.

Ascertaining that the professionals regarded the 20 motivations as significant for managing CE knowledge regarding C&D WM (with a mean value > 3.00), EFA was conducted to examine underlying factors. Initial PAF was conducted with oblique rotation (direct oblimin). All the variables had correlations greater than 0.3, and MSA values (KMO values for individual items) were greater than 0.741, which is above the acceptable limit of 0.5. The KMO test verified the sample adequacy with a value of 0.843. Results for Bartlett's test of sphericity indicated a chi-square value (χ²) of 1,127.929 (df = 190) with a significance (p) of <0.001. This ascertains data quality according to the criteria of (Hair et al., 2013), mentioned in Figure 1. The 20 motivations were then checked for the communality, which is the proportion of each item's variance that is explained by the extracted factors, indicating how well each item fits within the overall factor structure (Hogarty et al., 2005). M11 and M20 have been eliminated from the study, which had communalities of 0.370 and 0.387 (<0.4), respectively, to ensure overall validity of the factor structure.

EFA was then conducted for the eligible 18 motivations. This reported KMO value of 0.842. Bartlett's test of sphericity results indicated a chi-square value (χ²) of 994.749 (df = 153) with a significance (p) of <0.001. This confirms the sampling adequacy of the data. Further, all the items received a MSA value > 0.786, indicating that the correlations between items were sufficient for PAF. In the above structure, M12 is not adequately loaded to the factor structure and is therefore not considered in EFA. The remaining 17 factors reported a KMO value of 0.837. Bartlett's test of sphericity results indicated a chi-square value (χ²) of 931.353 (df = 136) with a significance (p) of <0.001. All MSA values were > 0.779. Table 4 outlines the results of the EFA, which extracted four factors, explaining 61.050% of the total variance.

In Table 4, the first value indicates the structure coefficient, and the pattern coefficients are shown in brackets. The structure coefficient explains the correlation of each item with the factor, including shared variances with other correlated factors, and the pattern coefficient explains the unique contribution by each item to the factor, after removing correlations with other factors (Whittaker and Schumacker, 2022).

The first factor (six items) was labelled as “Professional commitment to CE”, consisting of M06, M13, M01, M09, M05 and M02. The second factor (two items) was labelled as “Ability for strategic marketing”, consisting of M10 and M07. The third factor (four items) was labelled as “Requirements for organisational growth”, consisting of M14, M17, M16 and M19. The fourth factor (five items) was labelled as “Project performance management”, consisting of M18, M15, M03, M08 and M04. The factor structure identified can be considered reliable, with Cronbach's alpha value of factors ranging from 0.728 to 0.804 (>0.7). Values for the “Cronbach's alpha scale if item deleted” concluded that the factor has the highest value when all the items are included (see Table 4). This verified that the current factor structure is most reliable with the given items. Since a factor needs at least three items to calculate “Cronbach's Alpha if item deleted”, this value is not available for “Factor 2”. Only the items that demonstrate a factor loading of >0.5 were included in the factor structure to ensure practical significance, eliminating M12 from the factor structure. This ensures construct validity of the factor structure with recommended factor loadings over 0.5 (Park and Kim, 2021).

This study identifies 20 motivations driving designers to manage CE knowledge to enhance C&D WM practices, categorised under four factors as discussed in Section 04. “The ability to secure a competitive advantage (M07)”, “a desire for exemplary leadership (M13)” and “external requirements for environmental sustainability (M04)” have been identified as the three highly mentioned motivations that emerged in the preliminary interviews. This aligns with the findings of (Marrucci et al., 2022b), which highlight that eco-innovations are ad hoc, rather than a consistent motivation. However, questionnaire findings contradict this view and identified “professional commitment to environmental stewardship (M01)” and the “requirement to ensure continued adaptability to the industry (M02)” as the two most critical motivations for CE KM regarding C&D WM. This difference can be attributed to the actor and observer bias theory by Jones and Nisbett (1987), where actors (respondents of the questionnaire survey, who commented on the significance of motivations to themselves) emphasise internal states, often aligning with intrinsic motivations, while observers (experts in preliminary interviews providing views about people in general) rely on broader, more general explanations, which often default to their underlying assumptions regarding the context. Since M01 serves as the topmost CE KM motivation for the designers in the broader construction industry, the regulatory bodies can focus on encouraging professional commitment via rewards and recognition for CE KM efforts attributed to C&D WM.

The findings derived four underlying factors to explain the motivations driving designers to manage CE knowledge for C&D WM, as professional commitment to CE (Factor 01), ability for strategic marketing (Factor 02), requirements for organisational growth (Factor 03) and ensuring project performance management (Factor 04). Among them, professional commitment to CE (Factor 01) is identified as the dominating motivation factor for CE KM. This study suggests professional commitment motivates designers to manage CE knowledge, aligning with a prior study by Sanboskani and Srour (2022) in the context of knowledge sharing among blue-collar workers. The items identified by Sanboskani and Srour (2022) under professional commitment are centred towards a sense of self-worth. In contrast, this study identifies that passion for CE (M06) and environmental stewardship (M01) drive professional commitment, in addition to exemplary leadership (M13) and emphasising self-worth through continued adaptability to industry (M02). This can be due to designers' connectivity with nature when designing, compared to workers at the construction sites. Therefore, this study uniquely highlights the need for industry and regulatory bodies to adopt a balanced approach to disseminating both the potential for environmental benefits and self-growth in CE via CE KM, to enhance the effective use of CE knowledge for C&D WM.

Ability for strategic marketing (Factor 02) is identified as a motivational factor for managing CE knowledge among designers regarding C&D WM. This is consistent with the existing studies in the CE context (Bertassini et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2025) and the construction context (He et al., 2025), which reveals that knowledge is shared to acquire a competitive advantage for the organisation (M07). Empirical findings unveil the M07 in job positioning as a unique motivation at the individual level, in addition to its potential at the organisational level for CE KM to designers, which is also similarly stated by Zhang et al. (2025). He et al. (2025) emphasised that knowledge sharing enables reputation (M10), with reference to mega projects in the construction industry. Even though M07 and M10 are concurrently discussed in construction-related studies for KM, empirical findings have uniquely revealed that they are connected as motivations for the CE KM regarding C&D WM. Therefore, designers' knowledge of the potential for personal branding via CE KM should be expanded.

Requirements for organisational growth (Factor 03) is also identified as an underlying motivational factor for CE KM regarding C&D WM. While Chembessi (2023) identified evaluating organisational performance targets (M16) and building intellectual capital for organisations (M19) as motivations to CE KM, this study uniquely identified that Factor 3 is also associated with interest in certifications (M14) and reporting requirements (M17). As preparing regular reports on CE goals and achievements is a success factor of CE adoption in the C&D WM sector (Swarnakar et al., 2025), M17 can be considered as a motivation to enable this success factor. Therefore, policymakers should establish clear and mandatory reporting requirements for CE use in C&D WM to motivate designers to manage CE knowledge. Marrucci et al. (2022a) identified that the diffusion of CE in organisations' environment does not affect individual commitment to implement CE. This may be a potential reason for the comparatively low ranking attributed to M16. Still, empirical findings disclose it a critical motivation for CE KM.

Ensuring project performance management (Factor 04) is a motivational factor for CE KM regarding C&D WM. Within this factor, risk mitigation (M08), potential cost savings (M15) and time optimisation (M18) are indicated specifically to the C&D WM context. Prior research indicates that the absence of a decision-support tool in this domain elevates project risks (Swarnakar et al., 2025). Consequently, M08 may serve as a motivation for developing a KM-based decision-support tool. In this context, disseminating knowledge on the risk mitigation potential of CE KM is required, which will, in return, contribute to increasing the adoption of CE practices for C&D WM. Wang et al. (2019) identified time and cost as barriers for designers to design for C&D WM. This can be a potential reason for low-scoring M15 and M18 compared to other motivations in Factor 04. Similarly, Javernick-Will (2012) reveals time as a barrier for KM in the construction industry rather than motivation. However, that study conveyed that external pressures help overcome time barriers, as employees do not want to be embarrassed in front of peers. This study also placed reputation and social image (M10) in a higher ranking compared to time pressures. However, more evidence is required to determine whether social image trade-offs time barriers in the CE context and can be a future research area. Still, designers continue to recognise that strengthening CE KM regarding C&D WM can generate time and cost benefits, which can compensate for the lack of time and financial support to design for C&D WM.

Irrespective of the diverse views on managing CE knowledge to obtain quality outputs (M03) in the preliminary interviews, it is one of the top three motivations for broader context designers to manage CE knowledge. M03 is revealed as a motivation for eco-innovation (Ul-Durar et al., 2023), and empirical findings convey a similar view for the C&D WM context. However, existing studies reveal low CE adoption in the C&D waste sector due to the perceived low quality of outputs (Swarnakar et al., 2025). This can be a concern for designers to consider that CE KM can enhance the quality of outputs. This suggests the need for suppliers to consider CE KM to overcome the perceived low quality of products with factual evidence and enhance project performance management.

The findings of this study reveal that designers give priority to monetary motivations, compared to social motivations, to manage CE knowledge in the Australian C&D WM sector. This contrasts with the findings of Javernick-Will (2012), who identified societal pressures (M20) as an influential motivation for CE knowledge sharing in the construction industry. Further, the above study commented that social motivations are equally important as monetary motivations in the construction context. Therefore, this difference may be attributed to the innovative nature of CE, which is still less commonly acknowledged by society. Audretsch and Fiedler (2024) reveal that communities have a desire for more sustainable ecosystems, which forces organisations to enhance KM. However, in the Australian context, community drive is not enough to motivate designers to manage CE knowledge, as designers are less responsive to societal pressures, according to the findings. This conveys the need for enhancing CE understanding of the broader construction industry and the general public beyond designers, which should be enabled via information sharing and policymaking. Existing studies also report extrinsic incentives (Lam and Lambermont-Ford, 2010) as a motivation for knowledge sharing in general. Therefore, incentive schemes should expand to encourage individual involvement in CE KM, which can go beyond incentives for sharing to evaluation, application and documentation as well.

This study reveals 20 critical motivations for CE KM regarding C&D WM among designers with four underlying motivational factors. Following the dearth of CE KM, it is important to first inform designers regarding these motivations as benefits of CE KM through structured dissemination of the knowledge. Professional accreditation bodies can take priority in this regard as they oversee the professional development and establish competency standards for professionals. As professional commitment to environmental stewardship has emerged as the most critical motivation, it is essential to ensure that all members of design teams demonstrate a shared level of commitment, thereby eliminating existing inconsistencies in participation in CE KM. Professional commitment to CE is the salient factor driving CE KM, and such commitment needs to be formally acknowledged to enhance participation in CE KM. Professional accreditation bodies could enable this factor through periodic certification requirements for members to reflect their commitment to CE practice. Industry organisations can integrate these motivations as key performance indicators of their employees to assess the impact of CE KM programs targeted to enhance organisational growth. Also, rewards and incentives can be provided for professionals demonstrating these motivations to encourage CE use in C&D WM. Moreover, KM tools and systems can be designed to allow for these motivations. For example, KM tools can be developed to track the quality of products, for risk assessment of CE and for conducting cost–benefit analysis for CE implementation to manage C&D waste. Policymakers can operationalise these motivations by embedding CE KM requirements in their regulatory frameworks. Regulations are needed to strengthen CE reporting in all educational, industrial and accreditation levels as it allows formal KM rather than ad hoc practices. As societal pressures and social image drive the enhancement of CE knowledge by design professionals, it is important to enhance community awareness to influence design decisions.

This study contributes to theory as a benchmark for future studies to determine concurrent factor validity in their studies regarding motivational factors for CE KM and serves as a list of indicators for assessing motivations in future modelling studies, which determines the holistic behaviour of motivations with other KM elements like KM practices and barriers. In practice, the findings will be beneficial for designers, organisations and policymakers to identify motivational factors that need to be empowered to enhance CE KM and to act based on them to manage CE knowledge for C&D WM. The enhanced implementation of CE KM practices will contribute to enhancing the quality of education (SDG 04). The improved knowledge of designers can contribute to educating clients to enhance financing for CE initiatives, which will contribute to decent work and economic growth (SDG 08) in the construction industry. Ultimately, enhanced implementation of CE practices for C&D WM contributes to responsible consumption of natural resources (SDG 12) and supports waste reduction and carbon footprint, which will help to mitigate climate change impacts (SDG 13).

This study has a few limitations. While the authors follow a reflexive thematic approach in analysing qualitative data, it is acknowledged that as in all qualitative studies, there can be author bias in interpreting findings. This introduces an interpretive lens to the study, whereby the findings are shaped through iterative engagement with literature and co-construction of meaning between the researcher and participants. This study reveals motivations specific to the Australian C&D WM sector, which is a key strength than a limitation. Australia, being one of the leading countries focusing on CE implementation, these findings serve as guidelines for other countries to motivate professionals' CE KM. The identified motivations can also be perceived as motivations for CE implementation, and therefore, future studies can compare and contrast motivations in the two contexts. Since this study is centred on designers, future studies can focus on identifying motivational factors for other professionals in the construction industry. Further, longitudinal studies can be conducted to identify the changes in CE KM motivations following current organisational and regulatory interventions, which will help to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. Moreover, the identified motivational factors can be mapped with the KM cycle to identify influential motivations for each KM practice.

Approval to undertake this research project has been given by the Human Ethics Advisory Group (HEAG) of Deakin University (reference number: 2024/HE000532).

The author(s) used the Grammarly free version for proofreading to identify spelling and grammatical corrections. After using this tool, the authors carefully reviewed and revised the manuscript as required and take full responsibility for the content of the published article.