Digital pathways to circularity: stakeholder engagement across the construction lifecycle in the era of construction 4.0

The construction industry is one of the world's largest consumers of natural resources and has traditionally operated within a linear economic model, characterised by a take, make, dispose approach (Benachio et al., 2020; van Stijn and Gruis, 2020). This model does not support dismantling or reusing structures, leading to high levels of waste and inefficiencies (Sudarsan and Gavali, 2024). In response to these challenges, adopting the Circular Economy (CE) promises a more sustainable approach that encompasses the entire lifecycle of materials, promoting optimal use of energy and resources from the outset (Sadeghi et al., 2023). Dongez et al. (2021) define CE as a model aimed at maximising the utilisation of valuable resources and minimising waste generation throughout a project's lifecycle. Together, these perspectives establish the sector-level stakes and motivate resource utilisation within a lifecycle view.

According to Banihashemi et al. (2024), effective implementation of CE principles must be embedded throughout the construction lifecycle, which involves multiple stakeholders operating across distinct yet interdependent phases. Unlike the traditional linear approach, where stakeholders have well-defined roles within isolated phases, CE calls for continuous engagement and cross-phase collaboration. Collaboration is understood here as coordinated interaction among stakeholders involving information sharing, joint problem-solving, and aligned responsibilities to achieve shared objectives (Yang et al., 2023). However, the construction industry's inherently fragmented structure has long been identified as a primary source of inefficiency (Sajid et al., 2024). This fragmentation constrains circularity because it prevents consistent cross-phase engagement, even though each phase offers distinct opportunities to apply circular principles (Adriaanse et al., 2010).

In this context, Construction 4.0 digital technologies have emerged as essential tools for creating an interactive environment that enhances stakeholder collaboration across various stages of construction (Li et al., 2022; Mahamadu et al., 2013; van der Heijden, 2023). Construction 4.0 is a subset of Industry 4.0 and encompasses a wide range of advanced digital technologies, including Building Information Modelling (BIM), the Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics, wearable technologies and automation (Siriwardhana and Moehler, 2023). These tools provide shared, traceable information that can align decisions across phases.

Rodrigo et al. (2024) note that, given the industry's fragmented nature, integrating CE principles across all phases of a construction project—from “cradle to cradle”—is a complex task that relies on Construction 4.0 technologies to facilitate the shift from a linear to a circular model. Bag et al. (2021) further emphasise that digital advancements within Construction 4.0 are crucial in supporting this transition, enabling smoother data sharing and data-driven strategies that enhance CE practices across all phases (Rodrigo et al., 2024). Yet technology adoption alone is insufficient without purposeful stakeholder engagement and governance.

Sajid et al. (2024) conducted a comprehensive review of Circular procurement in construction, identifying several persistent barriers, including unreliable information-management systems, poor stakeholder collaboration, and issues related to trust—understood as stakeholders' willingness to rely on one another based on positive expectations of others' behaviour (Moorman et al., 1992). While such studies have advanced understanding of the organisational and supply-chain impediments to CE adoption, they have largely overlooked how emerging Construction 4.0 technologies can facilitate stakeholder interactions and operationalise circular principles across the project lifecycle.

Rashidian et al. (2025) proposed a framework aligning digital technologies with CE principles across construction phases. However, the scope of the study was limited to technological alignment, and it did not explore opportunities for engaging stakeholders through digital tools to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the critical enablers of circular practices. Other studies, such as Fobbe and Hilletofth (2023), have advanced the conceptual understanding of stakeholder engagement within CE contexts, emphasising its pivotal role in supporting the transition from linear to circular systems. While this body of research has clarified engagement practices and stakeholder roles from a theoretical perspective, it has yet to examine how emerging digital technologies, particularly those associated with the Construction 4.0 paradigm, can facilitate and sustain such engagement across project phases.

Developing a clear, lifecycle-oriented understanding of how stakeholders apply these technologies to advance CE principles, therefore, remains a key research need in the construction literature (Sajid et al., 2024; van Stijn and Gruis, 2020). This multidimensional study examines the interplay between stakeholder involvement and digital innovation in advancing circular practices, guided by the following research question:

1. How do Construction 4.0 technologies support stakeholder engagement in each construction phase to enable CE implementation?

This study contributes by (1) examining stakeholder roles and engagement across construction phases within the circular economy context, and (2) analysing how stakeholders adopt Construction 4.0 technologies to enable collaboration, information continuity, and circular practices across the project lifecycle.

In addition to the core focus on the CE and Construction 4.0, this study is positioned within the broader discourse of sustainability and systemic transformation in the built environment. Achieving sustainability in construction extends beyond material reuse and energy efficiency; it requires addressing deep-rooted institutional and governance challenges that shape stakeholder behaviour and decision-making across the lifecycle. Scholars have identified fragmented governance structures, siloed data systems, and a lack of integrated digital infrastructure as persistent barriers to circularity (Sajid et al., 2024; Banihashemi et al., 2024). The shift toward CE must therefore be understood as part of a wider transition to sustainable development—one that aligns with the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) of Planet, People, and Profit value creation (Zubair et al., 2024). From the Planet and Profit dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line, digital technologies support waste reduction, material recovery, lifecycle optimisation, and long-term value creation (Souza et al., 2025). From the People dimension, they enable safer working environments, greater transparency, and improved stakeholder coordination. Framing CE and Construction 4.0 within the TBL positions digital technologies as enablers of holistic sustainability outcomes rather than purely technical solutions (Souza et al., 2025).

This view has also been supported by emerging research on digital innovation and sustainability in other domains, including FinTech-driven sustainability transformations (Offiong et al., 2025) and metaverse applications in education to enhance social sustainability (People) (Alkhwaldi, 2024). Furthermore, organisational learning mechanisms—such as communities of practice—have been shown to foster sustainability outcomes through shared technologies and collaborative cultures (Abdulmuhsin et al., 2025). This study contributes to this evolving dialogue by examining how digital tools not only enable CE practices but also act as mediators of institutional collaboration, governance coordination, and stakeholder engagement.

This article begins with an overview of the circular economy, stakeholder engagement, and Construction 4.0 to establish the conceptual foundation of the study, followed by an outline of the systematic literature review methodology. Within the Results and Discussion sections, the paper adopts a staged analytical approach: it first examines stakeholder roles and engagement across construction phases within the circular economy context to establish the basis for understanding cross-phase interactions and circular responsibilities. This analytical basis informs subsequent synthesis, which explicitly examines how stakeholders adopt and use Construction 4.0 technologies to enable collaboration and circular practices across the project lifecycle.

The CE is widely recognised as an approach that transforms resources into valuable materials for other processes and products (Qazi and Appolloni, 2022; Shashi et al., 2023). It promotes keeping materials, components, and products in use for as long as possible to maximise their value and eliminate waste (Babbitt et al., 2021; Balletto et al., 2021). The CE is described as a regenerative economic system that replaces the traditional end-of-life model with continuous material circulation, thereby minimising waste and environmental impact.

According to a recent study by Rashidian et al. (2025), the CE framework in construction is built on seven core principles: Design, Efficiency, Reduce, Repair, Reuse, Recycle, and Recovery. These principles span the entire project lifecycle, from early-stage design and planning to end-of-life processes. In this study, circularity begins with intentional design choices that promote adaptability, disassembly, durability, and end-of-life planning, ensuring materials and components can be reused or recycled to reduce waste and extend value (Chen et al., 2022; Minunno et al., 2018). Efficiency focuses on maximising output with fewer inputs by optimising the use of materials, energy, and water across all project phases (Mandicak et al., 2024). Reduction seeks to minimise both the quantity and intensity of resource use and waste generation. Repair and maintenance extend the lifespan of assets, while reuse encourages the continued application of salvaged materials or components (She et al., 2024; Zubair et al., 2024). Recycling transforms waste into new raw materials, and recovery extracts residual value or energy from end-of-life structures, keeping resources circulating within the system (Shashi et al., 2023).

Rashidian et al. (2025) also outlined seven key phases—planning, design, tendering, manufacturing, construction, operation, and end-of-life—through the lens of the CE. Each phase of the construction lifecycle presents distinct opportunities to embed CE principles. Planning sets CE-aligned objectives such as reducing resource consumption and enhancing long-term asset value (Shooshtarian et al., 2022). Design focuses on durability, adaptability, and material selection (Dongez et al., 2021). Tendering is treated as a standalone phase, as in CE-oriented projects, it serves as a strategic stage for embedding circular requirements. This shifts procurement beyond cost and schedule considerations to include sustainability criteria such as supplier commitments to material reuse, waste reduction, and lifecycle performance (Rashidian et al., 2025). This view is supported by emerging literature recognising tendering as a strategic opportunity to embed sustainability criteria into contractual obligations and supply chain alignment for circular outcomes (e.g. Shooshtarian et al., 2022; Ahmed et al., 2023; Karlovsek et al., 2023; Chartier and Pot, 2024).

The manufacturing phase plays a crucial role in achieving circularity by producing components that are modular, recyclable, and resource-efficient (Minunno et al., 2018). Manufacturing is also defined as a distinct phase to capture the increasing role of off-site and prefabricated construction driven by Construction 4.0 technologies such as robotics, additive manufacturing, and AI-assisted production (Rashidian et al., 2025). During the construction phase, CE principles are put into practice on-site through the efficient use of resources, minimisation of waste, and the application of digital technologies to monitor materials in real-time (Rashidian et al., 2025). Operation extends asset longevity through maintenance and optimisation (Chen et al., 2022). End-of-life stages prioritise deconstruction and recycling to maximise recovery (Dongez et al., 2021). These phases are interconnected rather than linear—feedback from later stages can inform future planning and design—reflecting the cyclical nature of CE and the need for collaboration across all construction stages.

While CE provides the guiding principles for material and resource circularity, stakeholder engagement ensures that these principles are operationalised through collaboration, shared decision-making, and coordinated action across lifecycle phases (Elder, 2019; Rashidian et al., 2025). Achieving a circular construction ecosystem requires the traditionally fragmented sector to operate as a continuous and integrated cycle, supported by a deeper understanding of technology adoption by and between diverse actors. A major research priority identified by scholars (Dongez et al., 2021; Honic et al., 2021; Sadeghi et al., 2023) is understanding how Construction 4.0 technologies can enable the industry's transition from a linear to a circular model—one that relies on both individual adoption and collective uptake across interconnected stakeholder networks.

Construction 4.0 technologies—including BIM, Digital Twins (DT), IoT, AI, robotics, automation, big data analytics, and blockchain—serve as digital enablers that enhance transparency, traceability, and integration among stakeholders (Hajirasouli et al., 2025; Teisserenc and Sepasgozar, 2021). These technologies can be broadly grouped according to their functions: information management tools such as BIM and DT that support integrated data environments; sensing and monitoring systems like IoT networks that enable real-time tracking of materials and performance; analytical and intelligent systems such as AI, Machine Learning (ML), and big data analytics that optimise design and decision-making; automation and robotics that enhance precision and efficiency in construction and manufacturing; and trust-building technologies such as blockchain and smart contracts that ensure transparency and accountability across value chains (Rashidian et al., 2025).

Recent studies have highlighted the importance of data governance, interoperability, and material passports as key enablers of circularity, particularly in the context of material reuse, recycle and lifecycle traceability (Talla and McIlwaine, 2024; Honic et al., 2019; Habibzadeh et al., 2019; Demertzi et al., 2023). Material passport systems—digital documentation of material origin, use, and recovery potential—are increasingly regarded as essential for supporting closed-loop construction practices and enhancing transparency across supply chains (Rodrigo et al., 2024; Abdulmuhsin et al., 2025). These tools align closely with Construction 4.0 technologies such as BIM, blockchain, and IoT, reinforcing the role of digital infrastructure in enabling both technical and organisational integration within CE systems (Rehman et al., 2025; Figueiredo et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2024; Ara et al., 2021). The success of such digital systems, however, also depends on stakeholder trust, regulatory alignment, and the interoperability of platforms across different lifecycle phases (Zubair et al., 2024). However, no existing study has comprehensively examined how Construction 4.0 technologies support stakeholder engagement across each construction phase to enable circular economy implementation. This gap motivates the present study, which synthesises the literature to develop a coherent integrative framework for advancing circular practices in the built environment.

This study adopted a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) to rigorously identify, evaluate, and synthesise the existing body of knowledge on the role of Construction 4.0 digital technologies in enabling stakeholder engagement within CE practices across the construction project lifecycle. To ensure clarity and methodological rigour, the review process was structured into a series of defined stages, as outlined in the following sub-sections.

The review protocol was structured according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, following the four stages of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion (David et al., 2023; Hossain et al., 2024). PRISMA was chosen because of its widespread acceptance in construction management, built environment and sustainability research, and its ability to improve methodological transparency and replicability (Regona et al., 2022).

This SLR utilised the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases as the primary sources due to their extensive coverage of peer-reviewed journals, structured metadata, and rigorous indexing protocols that ensure research quality and reproducibility. This approach aligns with established practices in recent CE and construction research, including the study by Norouzi et al. (2021). Google Scholar was excluded because its search algorithms, inclusion criteria, and metadata structures are not transparent or standardised, which can lead to inconsistent results and compromise the methodological rigour expected in systematic review research.

To capture relevant literature, search strings were applied to article titles, abstracts, and keywords. The Boolean expression used was as follows:

These keywords were refined through exploratory searches, reference snowballing, and consultation with recent review articles (van der Heijden, 2023).

A total of 1,511 records were retrieved from the initial search, including 1,189 records in Scopus and 322 articles in WoS. During primary screening, 874 articles were excluded as they were books, book chapters, conference proceedings, editorials, reports, non-peer-reviewed articles, articles not written in English, or publications dated before 2015. This left 637 articles for further assessment. To address duplication arising from the use of multiple databases, 95 duplicate articles were removed, resulting in 542 unique articles.

Following the removal of duplicates, a secondary screening of the remaining 542 articles was conducted through a close review of their titles, abstracts, and keywords. In addition, a structured quality appraisal was conducted to ensure that the selected studies made a direct and meaningful contribution to the research questions. The assessment framework and scoring system (Table 1) were developed in line with the previous systematic reviews in the construction domains (Ghanbaripour et al., 2023) and refined through the research team's review of published material.

Each quality criterion was evaluated using a scoring method (Yes = 1, No = 0). Studies that failed to meet one or more of the key quality criteria, particularly those that lacked relevance to the construction industry, stakeholder engagement, or digitalisation context, were excluded from the synthesis. To minimise reviewer bias, two researchers independently performed the appraisal and discussed any discrepancies until agreement was reached. Discrepancies in scoring were discussed and resolved through consensus among the research team to maintain consistency and minimise individual bias.

This process resulted in the exclusion of 405 articles, reducing the dataset to 137 papers for full-text review. At the next eligibility stage, articles were excluded if they: (1) provided insufficient methodological detail to allow evaluation of validity and replicability; (2) lacked explicit discussion of stakeholder roles or engagement mechanisms; or (3) only referenced circularity or digital tools as peripheral considerations rather than integrated themes. Following this refinement, 84 articles remained.

The final quality appraisal was then conducted to ensure that the selected articles demonstrated analytical depth and alignment with the study's research question. Specifically, articles were excluded if they offered only generalised commentary lacking substantive analysis. This screening process resulted in a final set of 58 high-quality articles, which served as the foundation for this study.

The final set of 58 studies was imported into NVivo, a qualitative data analysis software, to support systematic coding, comparison, and synthesis as part of an inductive, bottom-up thematic analysis. This approach allows themes and relationships to emerge directly from the data rather than being imposed through pre-defined coding schemes (Rashidian et al., 2024; Hajirasouli et al., 2025). It is particularly suited to synthesising complex and multidisciplinary literature, as it supports a grounded understanding of how Construction 4.0 technologies facilitate stakeholder engagement in advancing CE principles. Accordingly, the present study adopts a qualitative synthesis approach focused on identifying mechanisms, relationships, and patterns across stakeholder engagement, lifecycle phases, and circular economy practices, rather than aggregating evidence based on frequency counts.

Initial coding was conducted line by line by one researcher to ensure close and systematic engagement with the data. Coding decisions and preliminary interpretations were recorded through analytic memos. These interpretations were then reviewed in regular collaborative discussions with the research team, during which interpretations were compared, discrepancies were identified, and disagreements were resolved. Following these discussions, the coding structure was iteratively refined to ensure consistency and analytical rigour. While inductive line-by-line coding involves interpretive judgement and may risk overlooking nuanced interpretations, analytical rigour and transparency were maintained through iterative peer consultation and shared memoing to reduce individual bias (Miles et al., 2013).

Two complementary coding strategies were employed to support the inductive analysis: Element Coding and Syntactic Coding. Element coding involves identifying and labelling explicitly stated terms, phrases, and concepts in the data that relate directly to the study's analytical focus. Element coding was used to identify and tag clearly observable concepts explicitly mentioned in the texts, such as stakeholder groups (e.g. contractors, clients, facility managers) and their roles, Construction 4.0 technologies (e.g. BIM, IoT, blockchain, AI/ML), construction lifecycle phases (e.g. design, operation), and CE principles (e.g. reuse, recycling). This step focused on identifying which elements were present in each study, without applying interpretive judgement. Syntactic coding was then used to examine how these identified elements were framed in the literature, focussing on how concepts were expressed and interpreted rather than simply noting their presence. For example, technologies were analysed based on whether they were described as operational tools, coordination mechanisms, data infrastructures, or enablers of lifecycle traceability. Together, these strategies enabled the analysis to distinguish between the presence of key elements and their functional or conceptual roles within the literature.

Codes were derived inductively from the data and subsequently consolidated into higher-order categories through interpretive comparison across studies. This consolidation used the construction lifecycle as an organising structure—drawing on the lifecycle phases of planning, design, tendering, manufacturing, construction, operation, and end-of-life — while the identification of categories and relationships remained inductively driven by patterns emerging from the data rather than being imposed a priori. NVivo's node and matrix query functions were used to group related codes and explore relationships across analytical dimensions. Cross-phase matrices were structured with lifecycle stages on one axis and stakeholder roles, technologies, and CE principles on the other, enabling systematic comparison of elements across phases in relation to how Construction 4.0 technologies support stakeholder engagement for circular economy implementation. These comparisons revealed patterns that informed concept mapping and the development of an integrative framework (Figures 2–4), defined here as a structured synthesis that connects relationships to explain interactions across the construction lifecycle.

Stakeholders are integral to the implementation of the CE within the construction industry (Honic et al., 2019). In a CE framework, stakeholders' roles and responsibilities extend beyond traditional, linear approaches, where each participant is typically involved only in certain phases of construction (Abdelaal and Guo, 2022). Instead, they play pivotal roles throughout the construction lifecycle, from initial planning to end-of-life considerations, to ensure resource efficiency, waste minimisation, and lifecycle optimisation (Tleuken et al., 2024). The current SLR identified 21 key stakeholders whose roles are integral to the CE and technological transformation of the construction sector. These stakeholders include Architects/Designers (Okika et al., 2024), Component Manufacturers (Zandee et al., 2024), Contractors and Subcontractors (Li et al., 2022; Wong et al., 2016), Energy Providers (Akanbi et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2024), Engineers (Structural, Mechanical, Electrical) (Charef et al., 2021; Gunhan, 2019; Sebastian, 2011), Environmental Consultants (Abdelaal and Guo, 2022; Xu et al., 2022a), Financial Institutions (Minunno et al., 2018; Sadeghi et al., 2023), Government Authorities (Hoeft et al., 2021; Ullah et al., 2024), Health and Safety Inspectors (Figueiredo et al., 2021), Legal Advisors (Banihashemi et al., 2024; Xu et al., 2022b), Maintenance Contractors (Nilimaa, 2023; Sebastian, 2011), Material Manufacturers (Minunno et al., 2018), Occupants/Tenants (Chan et al., 2024), Procurement Managers (Balasubramanian et al., 2024; Xu et al., 2022a), Project Owner/Client (Akinade and Oyedele, 2019), Quality Control Inspectors (Hentges et al., 2022; Huynh-Xuan et al., 2024), Quantity Surveyors (QS) (Charef et al., 2021; Olawumi and Chan, 2019), Site Managers (Charef et al., 2021; Shi and Xu, 2021), Suppliers (Akinade and Oyedele, 2019), Urban Planners (Mahamadu et al., 2013), and Waste Management Companies (Ullah et al., 2024).

The involvement of these stakeholders in promoting circularity and adopting advanced technologies follows a complex and non-linear pattern across project phases (Qazi and Appolloni, 2022). Existing research has largely examined stakeholder roles within isolated phases or in connection with specific technologies, with only a few studies exploring the participation of a small subset of stakeholders across multiple lifecycle stages (Abdelaal and Guo, 2022; Oke et al., 2024).

In this study, Figure 1 maps stakeholder roles and activities across all construction phases, establishing the stakeholder–phase–principle relationships that underpin the analysis. This mapping clarifies who contributes to each CE principle and when, providing the basis for understanding how Construction 4.0 technologies enable stakeholders to operationalise circularity. The following sections build on this foundation by integrating the relevant technologies to show how digital tools support these relationships and translate circular principles into practice.

In traditional, linear construction approaches, Architects and Designers were primarily involved in the Design phase, with occasional input during the Planning stage (Charef, 2024; Sebastian, 2011). However, in a circular construction model, their role expands significantly across at least six phases. In the Planning phase, architects are tasked with setting design goals that align with CE principles, particularly emphasising modularity and reusability (Shi and Xu, 2021; Tleuken et al., 2024). This role directly supports fostering Design and Reuse principles of CE, laying the foundation for sustainable building practices from the project's inception. During the Design phase, architects focus on creating plans that facilitate disassembly, longevity, and minimal waste, aligning with CE principles such as Repair, Reuse, Recycle, and Recovery (She et al., 2024). In the Manufacturing phase, which is critical to CE, architects play a central role by specifying sustainable materials that reduce environmental impact, directly contributing to the Reduce and Recycle principles (Guerriero et al., 2024). Their oversight ensures that materials meet CE standards, enabling efficient production and minimising resource waste. In the Operation Phase, their role shifts to inspecting and verifying that circular design elements are properly implemented on-site, ensuring that construction practices adhere to CE guidelines established in the planning stages (Charef, 2024; Oke et al., 2024). Furthermore, their expertise is crucial in End-of-Life planning, where they contribute to strategies for deconstruction and material recovery, closing the loop in the CE cycle (Charef, 2024; Ganiyu et al., 2020). Their strong influence during the early stages often diminishes in later phases, revealing a dependency on downstream collaboration mechanisms to sustain circular performance.

In linear construction models, contractors and subcontractors are primarily active during the construction phase, typically executing designs developed by others and delivering outputs according to predefined specifications (Dosumu and Uwayo, 2023). Under a CE approach, their role extends from project inception to end-of-life, contributing expertise in resource estimation, logistics, and workflow planning to enhance efficiency and minimise waste. Researchers have highlighted their expertise in efficient workflow planning in the Planning Phase, which can significantly enhance resource efficiency and minimise waste from the outset (She et al., 2024). Their involvement in planning aligns directly with the Efficiency and Reduce principles, as they can help forecast material needs, plan for modular construction, and suggest resource-efficient strategies that minimise environmental impact (Saradara et al., 2024).

During the Design phase, contractors' input becomes essential in ensuring that CE principles are integrated into the project specifications (Abdelaal and Guo, 2022; Charef and Emmitt, 2021). Their expertise can help in selecting materials and construction methods that facilitate future disassembly and reuse, contributing to the Reuse and Recycle principles (Sebastian, 2011). Contractors and subcontractors continue to play a critical role in the Construction phase, where they are directly responsible for implementing circular design strategies on-site (Shi and Xu, 2021). In a CE context, they ensure that sustainable practices, such as waste segregation, on-site recycling, and the use of reclaimed materials, are effectively integrated into construction workflows (Saradara et al., 2024). Their role also includes training the labour force in CE practices and ensuring compliance with sustainability standards set during the planning and design phases (Akinade and Oyedele, 2019; Hoeft et al., 2021). This hands-on implementation is crucial for aligning daily operations with CE principles, enabling the project to stay on track with its circularity goals. In a CE, contractors' duties extend to the End-of-Life phase, carrying out deconstruction for efficient material recovery (Elghaish et al., 2023). This involvement is crucial for realising the Recovery and Recycling principles. Despite their practical control over on-site implementation, contractors' engagement remains heavily shaped by upstream design and procurement decisions, underscoring asymmetrical decision power across phases.

In linear construction models, Engineers, including structural, mechanical, and electrical Engineers, play a specific role focused primarily on designing and implementing building systems during the Design and Construction phases (Sebastian, 2011). However, in the circular construction model, the role of Engineers has evolved, extending across multiple phases of the project lifecycle and incorporating sustainability principles throughout (Kreiner et al., 2015). In the Planning phase, Engineers set technical requirements and sustainability goals to integrate CE objectives early on (Alghuried, 2023; Gunhan, 2019). In the Design phase, they create efficient, adaptable, and durable systems, supporting Design and Efficiency principles by optimising resources and minimising long-term waste (Waqar et al., 2023). In the Manufacturing phase, Engineers play a critical role in ensuring that materials are sourced responsibly, supporting the Reduce principle by minimising the use of virgin resources and promoting recycled or renewable materials (Sadeghi et al., 2023). Their responsibilities continue into the Construction phase, where they oversee the implementation of designs, ensuring adherence to CE principles during construction activities (She et al., 2024). In the Maintenance phase, Engineers ensure systems run efficiently, aligning with the Efficiency principle and minimising resource waste over time (Saradara et al., 2024). During the Operation phase, they assist in optimising energy and resource usage, supporting the Efficiency principle by minimising the building's operational environmental impact (Saradara et al., 2024). Finally, in the End-of-Life phase, Engineers' expertise becomes crucial for the deconstruction of mechanical and electrical systems (Elghaish et al., 2022). Their involvement enables effective separation of components for reuse or recycling, supporting the Recycle and Recovery principles.

In large scale construction projects, both urban planners and environmental consultants play integral roles in implementing CE practices across multiple phases, extending their influence beyond traditional boundaries (Charef et al., 2021; Röck et al., 2018). Urban planners bring their expertise in sustainable land use and resource allocation during the Planning phase, where they support the Efficiency and Reduce principles by ensuring that land and resources are utilised optimally and sustainably (Charef et al., 2021; Saradara et al., 2024). In the Design phase, they collaborate with architects to create adaptable urban designs that support long-term use, flexibility, and sustainable growth (Sadeghi et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2022b). In the End-of-Life phase, they aid in establishing Recovery and Recycling infrastructure within cities, promoting efficient waste management and material recovery (Moshood et al., 2024). Environmental consultants, on the other hand, conduct Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) in the Planning Phase, setting the foundation for sustainable development (Charef et al., 2021; Röck et al., 2018). During the Design phase, their recommendations for eco-friendly materials and methods directly contribute to the Design and Efficiency principles (Ganiyu et al., 2020). Their involvement extends to the Construction phase, where they monitor site compliance with CE principles, primarily supporting the Reduce and Recycle principles. In the End-of-Life phase, environmental consultants advise on best practices for material recovery and recycling methods, aligning with the Recovery principle (Banihashemi et al., 2024). In large scale projects, Legal Advisors play a crucial role in large-scale construction projects by integrating CE principles into contractual frameworks (Rosayuru et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2023). During the Design phase, they draft contracts specifying sustainability requirements, including the use of recyclable and reusable materials (Nilimaa, 2023; Singh and Kumar, 2024). In the Tendering phase, they ensure that sustainability clauses are enforceable, establishing legal accountability for resource efficiency, waste reduction, and material reuse (Charef, 2024; Hoeft et al., 2021; Rosayuru et al., 2022). This approach supports key CE principles, Reduce, Recycle, and Reuse, by creating a strong legal foundation that reinforces circularity throughout the project lifecycle.

In the traditional linear construction approach, Procurement Managers and Suppliers typically had more limited roles, primarily focused on sourcing and delivering materials and components for the construction phase (Qazi and Appolloni, 2022). However, in a circular construction model, both Procurement Managers and Suppliers play expanded, multifaceted roles across various phases to ensure alignment with CE principles (Charef, 2024; Qazi and Appolloni, 2022). Procurement Managers are now involved in at least four different phases of construction in the circular model. In the Design phase, they evaluate suppliers' sustainability credentials, aligning sourcing with CE principles (Balasubramanian et al., 2024; Xu et al., 2022a). During Tendering, they prioritise bids with high recycled content, supporting the Recycle principle (Zandee et al., 2024). In Manufacturing, they source low-impact, durable materials, contributing to Efficiency and Reduce principles (Najjar et al., 2022). In the Construction phase, they oversee sustainable sourcing and timely delivery, maintaining supply chain efficiency (Saradara et al., 2024). Suppliers, on the other hand, have also seen their role expand in the circular construction model (Abdelaal and Guo, 2022). In the Manufacturing phase, they contribute to circularity by supplying modular and reusable components, which can be easily disassembled and repurposed (Balasubramanian et al., 2024; Sebastian, 2011). In the Construction phase, suppliers minimise waste through efficient delivery, supporting the Efficiency and Reduce principles (Ganiyu et al., 2020; She et al., 2024). Additionally, some researchers recommend involving suppliers as early as the Planning phase to leverage their expertise in sustainable and recyclable materials, thereby aligning procurement strategies with CE goals and directly supporting the Design principle (Dongez et al., 2021; Qazi and Appolloni, 2022).

There are several other key stakeholders in the circular construction model, as shown in Figure 1. Waste Management Companies are involved in at least three phases: Planning, Construction, and End-of-Life, where they sort and process waste materials, directly supporting the Reduce, Recycle, and Recovery principles by facilitating effective waste handling and material recirculation (Banihashemi et al., 2024; Honic et al., 2019, 2021). Energy Providers also play a significant role across three different phases: Construction, Operation, and End-of-Life (Nilimaa, 2023; Wu et al., 2024). They are responsible for maintaining the supply of renewable energy during construction and operation and supporting power disconnection during End-of-Life deconstruction (Shi and Xu, 2021).

These activities support the Efficiency, Reduce, and Recovery principles at various stages of the project lifecycle. Site Managers also oversee on-site activities, ensuring efficient material management and recycling practices, which directly support the Recycle and Efficiency principles (Ferdosi et al., 2023). During the Operation phase, their role shifts to consider resource efficiency in repair and maintenance activities (Al Rashid and Koç, 2023). In the End-of-Life phase, Site Managers provide support for proper deconstruction and waste separation in the recovery process, directly contributing to the Recovery principle (Akanbi et al., 2019; Oke et al., 2024).

Project Owners/clients influence circularity in the planning, design, and tendering phases, where they set CE goals, specify requirements for recycled materials, and shape procurement expectations linked to Design, Reduce, and Recycle principles. However, the literature does not consistently document their direct use of Construction 4.0 technologies. They are therefore included in the stakeholder map for their strategic role but excluded from the technology-adoption analysis to avoid overstating their digital engagement.

Beyond cataloguing roles, Figure 1 reveals clear asymmetries in network centrality and collaboration intensity. Architects/Designers, Engineers, and Contractors/Subcontractors operate as central connectors—spanning the widest set of phases (planning–manufacturing–construction–operation–end-of-life) and activating multiple CE principles in each. By contrast, Financial Institutions, Legal Advisors, Energy Providers, and Occupants/Tenants appear episodic or phase-bound. This unevenness suggests where technology-enabled engagement must be strengthened to realise lifecycle circularity. These engagement asymmetries often reflect underlying institutional barriers—fragmented governance structures, data-sharing reluctance, and unequal digital capability among actors—which limit effective communication and feedback loops across the project. Three distinct collaboration gaps are evident, as follows.

A vertical planning–delivery gap appears between macro-level actors (such as Urban Planners and Government Authorities) and site-level delivery teams (Contractors/Subcontractors and Site Managers). In Figure 1, planners and regulators carry responsibilities for setting CE goals, land-use decisions, permits, and compliance, yet their activities do not consistently connect to real-time construction tasks, leaving limited feedback loops into site-level decisions.

The procurement–production interface reveals one of the most significant structural gaps in achieving circularity. Procurement Managers and Quantity Surveyors play a central role in defining circular expectations—such as selecting suppliers with CE credibility, prioritising recycled content, and evaluating the cost of circular materials. However, as shown in Figure 1, these requirements do not consistently translate downstream to Material Manufacturers, Component Manufacturers, or Suppliers. Manufacturers remain responsible for producing recycled, reusable, or modular components, yet they operate with limited visibility of procurement constraints and without guaranteed traceability mechanisms that confirm recycled content, material provenance, or end-of-life recoverability. Likewise, Suppliers are tasked with providing certified recycled materials and reusable components, but their ability to verify credentials depends on upstream digital systems that currently lack interoperability.

This misalignment constitutes a procurement–production gap in which circular specifications are set at the commercial decision-making level but cannot be reliably matched with verifiable material flows in practice. The figure shows this disconnect clearly: procurement and cost-evaluation responsibilities cluster in the early phases, while material verification and recovery responsibilities cluster in the manufacturing and end-of-life phases, with few mechanisms linking the two.

Third, an end-of-life gap emerges between Designers/Engineers and Waste Management companies or Component Manufacturers. Designers and Engineers in the figure specify modularity, disassembly, and long-life components, yet downstream actors responsible for recovery and reuse have limited interaction with those early-stage intentions. As a result, design-for-disassembly does not connect strongly with recovery markets.

To address the three identified collaboration gaps, this study outlines targeted digital pathways as follows:

1. Vertical planning–delivery gap–Integration of Geographic Information System (GIS), BIM, DT, and IoT site feeds facilitates two-way information flow—translating planning constraints into real-time site decisions and feeding as-built data back into city-scale models Rashidian et al. (2025).

2. Procurement–production gap – Linking BIM-based material schedules with blockchain enables material passports, supplier compliance verification, and traceability of recycled content, while QS analytics align lifecycle cost assessments with CE criteria (Ferdosi et al., 2023).

3. End-of-life gap – Combining BIM and DT with embedded disassembly metadata, AI-assisted deconstruction planning, and market-linked material registries connects design-for-disassembly approaches with recovery and reuse markets, supporting circular resource flows across the asset lifecycle.

Building on Figure 1's central patterns, Section 4.2 explains how specific Construction 4.0 tools mediate communication, coordination, and decision-making across those gaps.

The transition to circular construction is redefining stakeholder responsibilities, making the use of Construction 4.0 technologies integral to how CE principles are applied across the project lifecycle (Moshood et al., 2024). Findings reveal distinct patterns in how different stakeholder groups adopt digital tools to support their circular roles. Figures 2–4 visualise these patterns, showing how specific technologies strengthen stakeholder contributions and enable coordination across phases. This section examines not only which technologies are adopted by different stakeholder groups, but also how these tools facilitate cross-phase collaboration and support stakeholder engagement in implementing circular practices.

The adoption of Construction 4.0 technologies by stakeholders, including Architects/Designers, Engineers, Urban Planners, Government Authorities, Financial Institutions, Environmental Consultants, and QS, is revolutionising the construction industry by fostering sustainability, enhancing project efficiency, and enabling the implementation of circular practices, as illustrated in Figure 2. Architects and designers are at the forefront of this technological revolution, leveraging a suite of advanced tools to enhance their design processes and outcomes (Nilimaa, 2023). BIM has a wide range of uses for them, particularly in the CE model (Charef and Emmitt, 2021). This includes simulating lifecycle performance and setting sustainability goals in the Planning phase of construction (Sajid et al., 2024; Saradara et al., 2024); designing systems for disassembly, tracking material inventories, and embedding recovery options in the Design phase (Yevu et al., 2021); specifying sustainable materials and coordinating with manufacturers in the Manufacturing phase (Figueiredo et al., 2021); and planning the deconstruction process in the End-of-Life phase (Nie et al., 2024). DT extend this capability by allowing architects to simulate and optimise building performance over time, supporting the CE principles of Design, Efficiency, and Reduce (Moshood et al., 2024; Zhang, 2024). Generative Design, powered by AI algorithms, enables architects to explore numerous design iterations rapidly, optimising for factors such as energy efficiency and material use (Yevu et al., 2021). The integration of IoT devices in architectural designs allows for smart building systems that can significantly reduce energy consumption and improve resource management (Sudarsan and Gavali, 2024; Zubair et al., 2024).

Engineers are similarly benefiting from these technological advancements. BIM and DT technologies enable Engineers to conduct more accurate simulations and analyses, leading to more efficient structural designs and better lifecycle management (Ghansah, 2024; Talla and McIlwaine, 2024). The adoption of IoT by Engineers allows for real-time monitoring of systems, ensuring optimal performance and early detection of maintenance needs (Waqar et al., 2023). By incorporating IoT data into their analyses, Engineers contribute to Efficiency and Recycle principles by extending the life of infrastructure and reducing resource wastage (Ganiyu et al., 2020; Honic et al., 2019). These technologies help Engineers maintain an active role across multiple phases of construction, from planning to operation and end-of-life.

Urban planners play a pivotal role in integrating sustainability and circularity into large-scale construction projects. GIS have become an integral tool for urban planners, enabling them to analyse spatial data, create detailed maps, and model urban environments (Zubair et al., 2024). This technology allows for more accurate land use planning, environmental impact assessments, and the development of sustainable urban spaces (Mahamadu et al., 2013). Drones are also being utilised by urban planners to gather high-resolution aerial imagery and create 3D models of urban areas, facilitating better urban design and monitoring of development projects (Siriwardhana and Moehler, 2023).

Financial institutions, although not directly involved in physical construction processes, are critical enablers of CE practices by providing the financial backing and risk assessments for sustainable projects (Guerriero et al., 2024; Hentges et al., 2022). Their use of Big Data Analytics allows for the evaluation of financial risks and returns based on CE metrics such as lifecycle costs and resource efficiency (Xu et al., 2022a). During the Planning Phase, Big Data Analytics enable financial institutions to assess market trends, policy impacts, and project sustainability, supporting Efficiency and Reduce principles (Wu et al., 2024). QSs also use Big Data Analytics to evaluate market trends, pricing fluctuations, and material availability, ensuring cost-effective procurement, directly supporting Efficiency and Reduce principles of CE (Oke et al., 2024).

Government authorities are exploring the use of Blockchain technology to enhance transparency and efficiency in urban planning processes (Singh and Kumar, 2024). This technology can provide secure, tamper-proof records of land ownership, building permits, and other critical urban development data (Sadeghi et al., 2023; Singh and Kumar, 2024). GIS is another crucial tool for government authorities, enabling land-use planning and infrastructure development that aligns with CE principles in the Planning and Construction phases, contributing to Design, Efficiency, Reduce and Repair principles of CE as presented in Figure 2 (Zubair et al., 2024). Environmental consultants are employing a combination of GIS, AI, and ML to conduct more comprehensive environmental impact assessments and develop sustainable urban solutions (Wu et al., 2024; Zubair et al., 2024). GIS allows for detailed analysis of environmental data, while AI and ML algorithms can predict environmental changes, optimise resource use, and propose mitigation strategies for urban development projects. Figure 2 shows that stakeholder engagement is not evenly distributed nor equally influential. Each group's digital interaction with CE objectives reflects its technical capacity and maturity, data access, and decision-making authority rather than a uniform commitment to sustainability. Technologies act as both connectors and differentiators: they enable shared visibility of lifecycle data yet also expose asymmetries in responsibility and impact. For instance, architects and Engineers demonstrate the highest degree of technological interdependence, using BIM, DT, and AI-driven modelling to influence design and manufacturing decisions. Their early-phase leadership in setting sustainability targets creates the foundation for circular performance downstream. However, their ability to sustain influence weakens beyond design and manufacturing, as construction and procurement decisions are often shaped by other actors with different priorities. This indicates that while architects and Engineers initiate circular intent, Construction 4.0 tools alone cannot guarantee its continuity without institutional collaboration and transparent data exchange.

Urban planners and government authorities occupy a systems-level position, using GIS, Blockchain, and mapping tools to manage spatial and material information. Their role is analytical rather than operational—enabling macro-scale decisions that connect projects to broader urban sustainability goals. Yet their engagement remains episodic, often limited to planning and approval stages. The data from Figure 2 suggest that, although these technologies enhance visibility and traceability, weak cross-platform integration prevents real-time feedback between planning and delivery actors, thereby making adaptive circular practices difficult to achieve.

Financial institutions and quantity surveyors shape CE implementation primarily through economic and data-driven assessments rather than through design or production activities. As shown in Figure 2, the extent to which Big Data insights influence circular investment or procurement decisions still depends on evidence generated by other actors (e.g. designers, Engineers, and manufacturers) who provide the underlying material, performance, and traceability data. Financial digitalisation can contribute to circular outcomes only when datasets are reliable and interoperable, linking material properties with cost and performance metrics—yet this integration is still largely absent in the construction ecosystem.

The adoption of Construction 4.0 technologies by key stakeholders such as Material Manufacturers, Contractors/Subcontractors, Component Manufacturers, and Maintenance Contractors has redefined their roles in aligning construction practices with CE principles, as illustrated in Figure 3. Material manufacturers benefit not only from their own adoption of Construction 4.0 technologies but also from the technologies adopted by other stakeholders, such as BIM-driven specifications provided by architects and Engineers (Hentges et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2022a). Material manufacturers use IoT to monitor production, improving resource use and cutting waste in line with the Efficiency and Reduce principles (Ullah et al., 2024). Blockchain technology is being explored for enhancing supply chain transparency and traceability of materials, which is crucial for CE practices (Sadeghi et al., 2023). DT, Robotics, and Automation play a transformative role in manufacturing workflows (Balasubramanian et al., 2024; Hoeft et al., 2021). DT allow manufacturers to simulate production processes, identify inefficiencies, and optimise resource use (Moshood et al., 2024). Robotics and Automation enable precision in material production, minimising waste and improving quality, thereby supporting the Reduce and Efficiency principles (Xu et al., 2022a).

Contractors and subcontractors are central to the implementation of CE practices during the construction and end-of-life phases (Saradara et al., 2024). They benefit from BIM models developed by architects and Engineers for material data, coordination, and reuse planning, but their effectiveness depends on the quality of upstream digital information and cross-phase collaboration (Najjar et al., 2022; Röck et al., 2018). Blockchain enables smart contracts and transparent project management, helping contractors and subcontractors automate agreements, ensure payment security, and improve accountability (Yevu et al., 2021; Rose et al., 2025; Forsythe et al., 2025). AI and ML algorithms are employed for risk assessment, resource allocation, and schedule optimisation (Huynh-Xuan et al., 2024). Robotics and automation are increasingly used for repetitive tasks, improving safety and efficiency (Elghaish et al., 2022). Wearable technologies are also enhancing worker safety and productivity by providing real-time data and alerts (Li et al., 2022).

Component Manufacturers are increasingly adopting a range of Construction 4.0 technologies to enhance their production processes and align with CE principles (Honic et al., 2021). BIM enhances collaboration with architects and Engineers in Manufacturing and End-of-Life phases, ensuring components are optimised for adaptability, longevity, and ease of disassembly, directly supporting the Reduce, Recycle and Recovery principles (Akanbi et al., 2019). IoT is being leveraged to create smart components that can communicate real-time data about their performance and condition (Al Rashid and Koç, 2023). Blockchain technology is being adopted to enhance supply chain transparency and traceability, ensuring the authenticity and quality of materials used in component manufacturing (Zandee et al., 2024). Component Manufacturers are also adopting AI and ML to optimise production workflows, predict demand, and identify opportunities to reduce waste during manufacturing (Figure 3).

Maintenance contractors are also embracing Construction 4.0 technologies to transform their service delivery and support CE practices (Elghaish et al., 2022; Masyhur et al., 2024). During the Operation Phase, IoT devices provide real-time monitoring of building systems, enabling contractors to detect faults early and schedule timely maintenance (Ullah et al., 2024). This directly supports the Efficiency and Repair principles by minimising downtime and extending the lifespan of infrastructure. Maintenance contractors use blockchain to create transparent, immutable maintenance records, supporting accountability and traceability (Voorter and Koolen, 2021). AI and ML algorithms are empowering maintenance contractors to analyse vast amounts of data from building systems, predicting potential failures and optimising maintenance schedules (Sajid et al., 2024). The integrated use of AI, ML and DT is one of the most transformative tools for maintenance contractors (Elghaish et al., 2022, 2023; Moshood et al., 2024). By creating a virtual replica of physical assets, these technologies allow for real-time monitoring, simulation, and optimisation of building performance.

Comparative analysis of Figure 3 shows distinct differences in digital maturity, influence, and engagement across stakeholders. Material and component manufacturers exhibit the highest degree of technological integration through DT, IoT, and automation, but operate largely within internally controlled digital environments. Contractors and subcontractors, by contrast, use a broader but more operationally focused digital toolkit, such as BIM, to translate design intent into on-site delivery. Maintenance contractors remain strongly dependent on upstream actors for accurate digital models; their influence emerges only during operation, where IoT, AI, and DT support predictive maintenance and resource-efficient repair. These contrasting patterns indicate that while manufacturers and contractors occupy different phases, their digital workflows are highly interdependent, yet fragmented datasets and weak interoperability continue to limit coordinated circular outcomes. Strengthening shared data environments across production, construction, and operation would amplify circularity benefits across the full lifecycle.

Energy providers are increasingly adopting Construction 4.0 technologies to optimise energy distribution and consumption in urban environments (Masyhur et al., 2024; Olawumi and Chan, 2019). During operation phases, Energy Providers leverage IoT to track and optimise energy consumption across building systems, supporting Efficiency and Reduce principles of CE (Kreiner et al., 2015; Rashidian et al., 2025). GIS is also utilised by the Energy Providers to map and analyse energy infrastructure, optimise network planning, and improve response times during outages (Mahamadu et al., 2013).

Waste management companies are leveraging IoT and robotics to revolutionise their operations (Chan et al., 2024). IoT sensors in waste containers provide real-time fill-level data, optimising collection routes and schedules (Dervishaj and Gudmundsson, 2024). Robotics and automation technologies are being employed in waste sorting facilities, improving Recycling Efficiency and reducing human exposure to hazardous materials (Waqar et al., 2023).

Site managers adopt a range of Construction 4.0 technologies to streamline operations and promote circularity during the construction lifecycle (Okika et al., 2024). In Construction and Operation, IoT devices track real-time material and equipment use and performance, supporting waste management and maintenance (Ullah et al., 2024). Robotics and Automation are employed by site managers to perform repetitive tasks, such as material sorting or assembly, with precision, minimising waste and improving Efficiency (Oke et al., 2024). Drones are employed for site surveys, progress monitoring, and safety inspections, providing accurate and timely data to inform decision-making (Balasubramanian et al., 2024). Health and safety inspectors are adopting wearable technology to enhance workplace safety monitoring (Olawumi and Chan, 2019). These devices can track vital signs, detect falls, and monitor environmental conditions, providing real-time data on worker safety and potential hazard mitigation (Oke et al., 2024).

Figure 4 highlights a different dynamic, where energy providers, waste management companies, site managers, and safety inspectors operate mostly at the operational and end-of-life edges of the circular ecosystem. Their adoption of IoT, GIS, robotics, drones, and wearable technologies play an essential but often peripheral role in circular performance. Energy providers and site managers hold continuous operational data streams, yet these datasets rarely integrate upward into design or procurement decisions. Waste management companies provide the most direct links to material recovery, but their digital systems often remain siloed from design-stage BIM or end-of-life planning tools. This creates a persistent disconnect between the information needed to design for disassembly and the data generated during disposal and recovery. The comparative patterns suggest that vertical integration—linking operational IoT data with design-stage BIM/DT environments—is essential for closing the recovery loop and achieving genuine lifecycle circularity.

This study contributes to theoretical understanding by addressing a key gap in the literature, namely the tendency to examine stakeholder engagement, digital transformation, and circular economy practices as parallel or loosely connected domains. By integrating stakeholder engagement and digital transformation perspectives into a unified theoretical lens for circular construction, the review advances understanding of how these elements interact across the construction lifecycle. Across the reviewed literature, Construction 4.0 technologies are portrayed not only as technical tools but also as relational mechanisms that structure how stakeholders collaborate, build trust, enhance transparency, and coordinate decision-making across lifecycle stages (Minunno et al., 2018; Hajirasouli et al., 2022; Elghaish et al., 2022). The synthesis reveals a consistent pattern in which digital platforms such as BIM, IoT, and digital twins function as shared coordination infrastructures, supporting multi-stakeholder engagement, reducing fragmentation, and aligning actors around circular objectives.

Building on established understandings of collaboration and trust discussed earlier in the paper, this review demonstrates that stakeholder collaboration in CE-oriented projects is increasingly digitally mediated. Rather than relying solely on organisational arrangements or interpersonal relationships, collaboration is enacted through shared digital infrastructures that embed coordination, transparency, and accountability into project practices. In this context, digital mediation refers to the role of digital technologies in enabling data traceability, shared visibility, and coordinated decision-making, thereby reinforcing trust and supporting effective stakeholder coordination in CE implementation (Chen et al., 2022; Ullah et al., 2024). In particular, BIM and IoT are frequently positioned as shared data environments that enable stakeholders to co-produce, access, and synchronise information across project phases (Xu et al., 2022a, b; Röck et al., 2018). This review also extends CE theory by positioning digital interoperability as a core enabler of circularity. While CE frameworks traditionally emphasise design and material strategies, a strong cluster of studies highlighted that realising circular outcomes also depends on how effectively digital infrastructure connects actors, lifecycle phases, and resource-related decisions (Rashidian et al., 2025; Zubair et al., 2024; Banihashemi et al., 2024). This introduces a relational and information-centric view of circularity—one grounded not only in the flow of materials but also in the flow of information across the project lifecycle.

Finally, these theoretical insights are situated within the emerging Construction 5.0 paradigm, which prioritises human-centric, sustainable, and resilient systems (Yitmen et al., 2024). By framing digital technologies as enablers of collaboration, trust, and coordinated circular decision-making, this review extends Construction 4.0 thinking toward Construction 5.0 by foregrounding the social and organisational roles of digital systems (van der Heijden, 2023). In doing so, the study highlights how digitally mediated stakeholder engagement supports more inclusive decision-making, strengthens coordination across fragmented supply chains, and enhances system resilience across the construction lifecycle. This positions Construction 5.0 not only as a technological evolution but as a socio-technical transformation in which digital infrastructures actively support sustainability transitions through improved stakeholder collaboration and circular governance (Bello et al., 2025; Marinelli, 2023).

Beyond theory, the proposed framework offers practical guidance for policy and industry. Policymakers can use it to inform digital-governance strategies that promote interoperability, traceability, and transparency throughout the project lifecycle, particularly in contexts where regulatory capacity and digital infrastructure are sufficiently developed (Qazi and Appolloni, 2022; Xu et al., 2022a, b). Governments may also explore incentive schemes or certification programs to drive digital and circular innovation; however, the feasibility and design of such schemes will vary depending on institutional maturity, regulatory traditions, and available public-sector resources (van der Heijden, 2023). Industry bodies can apply these findings to develop shared data standards, digital capacity-building programs, and lifecycle-based procurement guidelines (Rashidian et al., 2025). In practice, these initiatives are likely to be more effective when implemented incrementally and tailored to sector-specific conditions, rather than through uniform mandates across diverse organisational contexts (van der Heijden, 2024).

At the project level, integrated digital ecosystems, linking planning, design, construction, operation, and end-of-life, were repeatedly cited as essential for reducing fragmentation and achieving circular performance (Röck et al., 2018; Elghaish et al., 2023). By enabling continuity of information across project phases, these systems support effective stakeholder engagement; however, in resource-constrained organisations, their adoption may need to be implemented incrementally.

Despite the opportunities associated with digitally enabled circular practices, significant implementation challenges remain. Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), in particular, face barriers such as limited digital capacity, financial constraints, and resistance to collaborative data sharing (Dosumu and Uwayo, 2023; Oke et al., 2024; Huynh-Xuan et al., 2024). Technical issues such as software interoperability, cybersecurity risks, and unclear data ownership further hinder integration. Addressing these barriers requires coordinated investment in capacity building, digital infrastructure, and trust frameworks to ensure that technology adoption translates into meaningful stakeholder collaboration rather than fragmented digitisation (Elghaish et al., 2022; Ullah et al., 2024; Banihashemi et al., 2024).

The synthesis also raises forward-looking implications for the built environment workforce. Discussions in the literature on digitalisation and circular practices point to increasing coordination demands at the interfaces between procurement, manufacturing, and on-site delivery (Yevu et al., 2021; Elghaish et al., 2022). These coordination demands suggest a potential need for roles or skill sets that bridge technical, organisational, and lifecycle perspectives, particularly in procurement- and production-related functions. This has implications for education and training pathways, which may need to place greater emphasis on interdisciplinary and lifecycle-oriented competencies across higher education settings (Masyhur et al., 2024).

While the findings of this study are broadly applicable, their effectiveness depends on local conditions such as policy support, infrastructure maturity, and organisational readiness. Advancing circularity will require ongoing investment in digital infrastructure, clear governance mechanisms, and trust-building strategies that support inclusive adoption across the sector.

This study provides a first comprehensive framework linking stakeholder roles across the construction lifecycle with the adoption of Construction 4.0 technologies to operationalise CE principles. By mapping over 70 distinct activities of 21 stakeholder groups to specific CE principles, the research demonstrates how coordinated, cross-phase participation enabled by digital tools such as BIM, IoT, blockchain, robotics, AI, and DT can enhance resource efficiency, enable closed-loop material flows, and foster collaborative decision-making. This study reveals that tools such as BIM, IoT, and DT act as shared data environments through which stakeholders exchange information, reduce miscommunication, and align decisions with circular objectives. Blockchain and Big Data analytics further enhance transparency and traceability across procurement and operations, while AI- and ML-driven modelling supports collaboration in design, construction, and maintenance. Integrating insights across stakeholder groups, the findings show that the value of Construction 4.0 technologies extends beyond their functional use. Their primary contribution lies in how they mediate communication, coordination, and decision-making across lifecycle stages. The findings also highlight that achieving circularity in the built environment requires dismantling traditional, linear role boundaries and embedding technology-enabled cooperation from project inception through to the end-of-life.

However, the analysis also indicates that these benefits remain uneven. Persistent challenges related to interoperability, data governance, cybersecurity, organisational readiness, and fragmented digital ecosystems limit the full realisation of circular outcomes. Stakeholder engagement is most constrained where datasets do not flow across organisational boundaries, particularly between design and construction, procurement and manufacturing, and design and recovery pathways. Strengthening these interdependent relationships—through shared digital standards, governance mechanisms, and incentive structures—offers the highest leverage for achieving system-wide circularity in practice.

This study is subject to the inherent limitations of inductive qualitative analysis, including potential subjectivity and the challenges associated with line-by-line coding of a large body of literature. These limitations were mitigated through systematic memoing, transparent documentation of analytical decisions, and team-based reflection, which enhanced methodological transparency and credibility.

The analysis draws exclusively on English-language literature, which may limit the inclusion of emerging practices, context-specific innovations, and regional variations in stakeholder engagement. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted with an awareness of potential linguistic and geographical biases inherent in the source material.

Additionally, the study does not include empirical validation through real-world case studies, and the rapidly evolving nature of Construction 4.0 technologies means that some insights may require periodic updating. These factors suggest that while the framework is robust, its applicability may vary across project types, organisational capacities, and regional contexts. Future research could also examine how stakeholder roles and engagement patterns evolve as digital adoption matures and how policy and market conditions differ between developed and developing nations in accelerating CE integration. Further exploration of the social and economic dimensions of circularity, such as workforce skills, business models, and stakeholder incentives, would also strengthen the framework's relevance and support the transition toward a digitally enabled circular built environment. Comparative research into how digital infrastructure, regulatory systems, cost constraints, and local resource conditions shape Construction 4.0 adoption across economic contexts could reveal pathways that balance technological ambition with practical feasibility and promote inclusive progress toward circularity.

Several emerging technologies sit outside the scope of this review but warrant attention due to their growing relevance in circular construction. Innovations such as generative AI, extended-reality environments, and the metaverse have the potential to reshape how stakeholders engage throughout the project lifecycle. These tools may enable immersive design collaboration, real-time DT simulations, and advanced predictive analytics to support lifecycle decision-making. Although not examined in this study, integrating such technologies into the proposed framework could create new opportunities for continuous, participatory engagement across geographically dispersed teams.

This systematic literature review did not involve human participants or animals and, therefore, did not require ethical approval. The authors also acknowledge the use of AI-based tools, including ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Grammarly, which were employed solely for language refinement and improving readability. All conceptual development, data interpretation, and critical analysis were conducted entirely by the authors.