Planning for Circular Economy Transitions in Emerging Economies: A Systematic Review of Business Model Innovation and Sustainable Development Pathways

This section presents the findings from our systematic review and bibliometric analysis to better understand CEBMI in emerging economies. The analysis revealed distinctive patterns in the evolution, intellectual structure, and implementation characteristics of CEBMI research.

3.1 Evolution and circular economy business model innovation publication trends research

Figure 2 shows the annual CEBMI publication trends and citations in emerging economies from 2010 to 2024, revealing distinct patterns in publication frequency and citation impact reflecting the field's maturation.

Three distinct evolutionary phases were identified that characterized the development of CEBMI research in emerging economies; each reflecting different stages of theoretical and practical advancement.

Experimental Phase (2010-2017): This phase emerged with a pioneering publication by Park et al. [32], which established foundational concepts regarding integrating business and environmental value in China's circular economy. This was followed by a 7-year research gap, during which only one study was published in 2017. This pattern reflected the nascent stage of conceptual development, when researchers were still grappling with how to best apply circular economy principles to the unique contexts of emerging economies.

Growth Phase (2018-2021): This period saw substantial expansion in research activity, with the number of publications increasing from 1 in 2017 to 8 in 2021. Citation counts rose dramatically, reaching a peak of 572 in 2020. This growth coincided with the increasing global awareness of circular economy principles, partially accelerated by sustainability concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. The surge indicated the growing recognition that emerging economies require context-specific approaches to implement a circular economy.

Maturation Phase (2022-2024): This most recent phase has shown continued growth in publication numbers, with 11 publications in 2022, 18 in 2023, and 8 in the first quarter of 2024. Citation numbers declined from the 2020 peak, typical of maturing research fields, where the focus often shifts from establishing foundational concepts to addressing specialized applications and implementation challenges. This evolution mirrored the trajectory observed in developed-economy circular economy research, though with a shorter maturation timeline.

Figure 2. Annual publication and citation trends for CEBMI research in emerging economies, 2010-2024

Figure 3. Journal co-citation network: Publication outlets and their relationships in economy business model innovation (CEBMI) research

3.2 Research landscape and influential contributions

Figure 3 illustrates the journal co-citation network for CEBMI research in emerging economies, with results revealing three main clusters that showed how knowledge is produced and disseminated across the field. The dominance of three journal clusters in Figure 3 was significant. The first cluster, centered on the Journal of Cleaner Production and Resources Policy, reflected the foundational role of industrial ecology and resource management theory in shaping how CEBMI has been conceptualized. These journals accept papers that cover engineering-led, material-flow perspectives on economic circularity. Early CEBMI research in emerging economies emphasized manufacturing and resource efficiency (Cluster 2) rather than institutional or social dimensions. The second cluster, anchored by the Journal of Environmental Management and Business Strategy and the Environment, represented the growing influence of institutional theory and stakeholder perspectives, providing the theoretical scaffolding for research addressing governance voids and multi-actor value creation — precisely the dimensions that distinguish CEBMI in emerging economies from developed-economy frameworks. The third cluster, linking Management Decision and the Journal of Business Research, signaled the recent turn toward strategic management and resilience theories, explaining why Clusters 4 and 5 (digital transformation and economic resilience) were the fastest-growing but least-cited areas: they represent the theoretical frontier of the field, where concepts from dynamic capabilities and adaptive strategy are only beginning to be applied to emerging-economy CE contexts. This three-cluster structure reflected a sequential theoretical layering — from industrial ecology to institutional theory to strategic management — that mapped directly onto the three evolutionary phases identified in Section 3.1, with important implications for the future path of theoretical development.

The citation patterns observed in our analysis were contextualized by benchmarking them against average citation rates for sustainability-related publications in the same timeframe. The mean citation count for publications in the circular economy and sustainability fields during 2010-2024 was 45 citations per paper. However, the top five influential papers significantly exceeded this benchmark, averaging 146.6 citations per paper, demonstrating their exceptional impact on the field. This was particularly notable in more recent publications, such as Chiappetta Jabbour et al. [33], which accumulated 259 citations in four years—a rate 5.7 times higher than other publications in this domain.

Table 2 presents the most influential publications in CEBMI research for emerging economies, including their objectives, analytical techniques, and citation metrics. The analysis revealed that Park et al. [32] was the most cited paper, establishing foundational concepts. The papers by Chiappetta Jabbour et al. [33, 34] garnered significant attention within a short period, evidenced by high annual citation counts.

Table 2. Most influential publications in CEBMI research for emerging economies

The distribution of analytical techniques across these influential publications revealed a predominance of qualitative approaches, particularly case studies. This methodological preference reflected the complex, context-dependent nature of CEBMI implementation in emerging economies, where understanding local dynamics and institutional arrangements requires in-depth exploratory research rather than standardized quantitative approaches. The concentration of citation impact in these five publications, which together accounted for 933 citations, or 42% of all citations in the corpus, indicated that the field has not yet achieved theoretical pluralism. The sustained dominance of Park et al. [32] (292 citations, published 2010) signaled that ecological modernization theory remains the foundational lens through which CEBMI in emerging economies is interpreted, while more recent publications have introduced institutional void and stakeholder network perspectives. The rapid citation accumulation of Chiappetta Jabbour et al. [33] (259 citations in four years, compared to 20.86 per year for Park et al.) suggested a theoretical inflection point, with the field actively shifting from an ecology-of-industry framing toward an institutional-stakeholder framing, more suited to the formal-informal hybrid economies characteristic of the emerging-economy context. The predominance of case study methodology across the five top-cited papers was not coincidental but theoretically driven because case studies are the most appropriate method for theory-building in under-theorized contexts. Eisenhardt [37] confirmed that CEBMI in emerging economies remained a theory-development rather than a theory-testing phase, aligning with the broader pattern observed in systematic literature reviews of sustainability management in developing contexts [38], where qualitative approaches dominated until sufficient theoretical consolidation permitted hypothesis-driven quantitative studies.

3.3 Intellectual structure: Bibliographic coupling analysis

Bibliometric analysis to determine "total link strength" represents the cumulative strength of connections between a specific publication or keyword and all other elements in the network. Higher link strength indicates that a publication or concept is more centrally connected to other research in the field. Figure 4 presents the bibliographic coupling network of CEBMI publications in emerging economies, revealing the intellectual structure of the field. The structure of Figure 4 warrants deeper analytical attention. The three patterns in the bibliographic coupling network revealed important theoretical dynamics. First, Cluster 1 (Implementation Barriers and Enablers) achieved the highest total link strength (42) despite not containing the most-cited individual paper. This occurred because Chiappetta Jabbour et al. [33] served as a theoretical bridge between institutional void theory and stakeholder network theory, with its high connectedness reflecting the field’s recognition that implementation barriers in emerging economies are fundamentally institutional rather than technical, a theoretical position that underpins all six clusters to varying degrees. The high link strength of Cluster 1 signals its role as the integrating theoretical core of the network rather than merely a thematic category. Second, the inverse relationship between citation count and link strength Clusters 4 and 5 (Digital Transformation and Economic Resilience) was analytically significant. Arsawan et al. [13] and Alo et al. [39] exhibited high link strength (37 and 34, respectively) relative to their modest citation counts (41 and 22), indicating that these papers were heavily cross-referenced by recent publications, despite not achieving broad citation accumulation. In bibliometric terms, this pattern identified them as “emerging bridges” — papers that are actively reshaping the theoretical conversation without dominating citation counts, consistent with the pattern identified by Wider et al. [40] in science mapping analyses of emerging sustainability research domains. Third, the low link strength of Cluster 6 (Sustainability Integration and Social Impact, maximum 31), despite the thematic importance of social value in emerging economies, reflected the theoretical immaturity of social impact measurement frameworks in CEBMI research — an important gap that our integrated framework addressed through the explicit social value creation dimension.

Table 3 presents the six bibliographic coupling clusters with their respective themes, key publications, citation impact, and total link strength. Each cluster was analyzed to better understand the implications of CEBMI in emerging economies.

Figure 4. Bibliographic coupling network: intellectual structure and research relationships in CEBMI literature

Table 3. Bibliographic coupling clusters in CEBMI literature

3.3.1 Cluster 1: Implementation barriers and enablers

This cluster focused on the challenges and facilitators of implementing CEBMI in emerging economies. Chiappetta Jabbour et al. [33] was the most influential publication, examining how stakeholders influence innovative business models in emerging economies with institutional voids. Publications in this cluster emphasized unique implementation barriers, including weak regulatory frameworks, limited financial resources, technological constraints, and key enablers such as stakeholder engagement and organizational capabilities.

Key findings from this cluster highlighted that successful CEBMI implementation in an emerging economy requires navigating multiple interconnected barriers simultaneously rather than addressing them sequentially. For example, Cantú et al. [11] found that Mexican SMEs that successfully implemented circular approaches developed integrated strategies that simultaneously addressed regulatory uncertainties, resource limitations, and stakeholder engagement. This cluster revealed important contextual differences compared to barrier-focused research in developed economies, where implementation barriers primarily involve market dynamics, cost concerns, and organizational culture [2]. By contrast, the barriers in emerging economies are more fundamental, involving infrastructural gaps, institutional voids, and resource constraints that require holistic rather than targeted responses.

3.3.2 Cluster 2: Manufacturing contexts and resource efficiency

This cluster examined the implementation of CEBMI in manufacturing sectors, with a focus on resource efficiency and industrial symbiosis. Park et al. [32] established a framework for integrating business and environmental value in China's circular economy. This cluster focused on how manufacturing firms in emerging economies adopt circular approaches in resource-constrained environments through hybrid strategies that combine selective technology adoption with labor-intensive processes.

One noteworthy finding was the emphasis on "technological leapfrogging," where manufacturers in emerging economies selectively adopt advanced technologies without following the same evolution path as developed economies. Chiappetta Jabbour et al. [34] documented how resource-intensive industries in Brazil implemented specific digital technologies for material tracking while maintaining labor-intensive processing, and achieved efficiency improvements at significantly lower capital costs than comparable operations in developed economies.

3.3.3 Cluster 3: Business model innovation and value creation

This cluster focused on designing innovative circular business models to create multiple forms of value in emerging economy contexts. Circular business models in developed economies typically emphasize product-service systems, sharing platforms, and industrial symbiosis [3], while models thriving in emerging economies tend to focus on community-based collaborative consumption, informal-formal integration platforms, and inclusive value chains.

Horvath et al. [42] documented how plastic recycling firms in Kenya developed hybrid business models that combined elements of traditional recycling with community-based collection systems and micro-entrepreneurship platforms. These models generated significant social value alongside environmental benefits by creating structured engagement mechanisms for informal waste collectors, thereby simultaneously addressing resource recovery and socioeconomic development.

3.3.4 Cluster 4: Digital transformation and technological enablers

Despite infrastructure limitations, this emerging cluster examined how digital technologies enable CEBMI in developing economies. Compared to similar research in developed economies, this cluster placed emphasis on "frugal digitalization" as the selective application of digital technologies with minimal resource requirements. Unlike comprehensive digital transformation approaches common in developed economies, research in this cluster focused on targeting technological interventions that addressed specific bottlenecks.

One critical distinction within this cluster was how digital tools were embedded within business model redesign rather than merely process optimization. Alo et al. [39] documented how used automotive parts dealers in Africa developed circular business models that combined digital communication platforms with revalorization networks, enabling informal traders to access formal markets while preserving their community-based operating logic. In these models, digital technology served as an enabler of business model architecture rather than a substitute. Yordanova and Shotarov [43] also introduced the concept of “digital resource leverage,” showing how social entrepreneurs in resource-constrained contexts transform digital scarcity into a circular business model opportunity by designing service offerings that convert connectivity limitations into community-based value exchange mechanisms. These studies demonstrated that CEBMI in emerging economies produced distinctive digital business model configurations that differed fundamentally from the process-automation focus of Industry 4.0 literature developed in high-income contexts.

3.3.5 Cluster 5: Economic resilience and adaptive strategies

This recent cluster focused on how circular business model configurations enhanced economic resilience, particularly during global disruptions. Research in developed economies typically positions circularity as an environmental strategy with economic co-benefits, but this cluster framed circular business model architectures primarily as resilience strategies with environmental co-benefits. Prosman et al. [44] provided direct evidence from business model design, documenting how third-party loop operators developed activity-based circular business models that generated resilience by closing resource loops for multiple upstream firms simultaneously. This created inter-firm interdependencies that buffered against individual supply chain disruptions while generating new revenue streams through material recovery services. From this business-model-level contribution, resilience did not emerge from operational adaptation within existing models, but from the architectural redesign of how value was created, delivered, and captured across interconnected actors.

Research in this cluster also underscored the importance of flexible implementation approaches that can adapt to shifting economic conditions. van Rooyen et al. [45] documented how agricultural circular initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa incorporated deliberate modularity in their implementation that allowed scaling back during economic downturns while preserving core circular practices.

3.3.6 Cluster 6: Sustainability integration and social impact

This cluster examined the social dimensions of CEBMI and integration with broader sustainability goals in emerging economies. This cluster was distinguished from comparable research in developed economies by the explicit emphasis on social impact as a primary rather than secondary outcome. Circular economy research in developed countries typically positions social benefits as positive externalities of environmental initiatives, but this cluster documented approaches that were deliberately designed for social impact alongside material circularity.

One significant finding from this cluster was that social impact considerations often drive adoption in emerging economies, whereas environmental considerations typically drive adoption in developed economies. Sehnem et al. [48] found that wine producers in Brazil adopted circular practices primarily for positive community impacts and secondarily for environmental benefits, representing an important motivational distinction from similar initiatives in developed wine regions.

3.3.7 Cross-cluster synthesis: Critical comparison, shared patterns, gaps, and open-ended questions

Reviewing the six clusters individually was insufficient without a critical cross-cluster comparison that identified the structural patterns, tensions, and persistent gaps that spanned the entire CEBMI literature in emerging economies. Our synthesis revealed three cross-cutting findings and four open-ended questions that individual cluster reviews did not expose. The first cross-cutting finding concerned the shared mechanism of informal-formal integration. All of the six clusters revealed that effective CEBMI in emerging economies required some form of structured engagement between formal economic actors and informal networks. Clusters 1 and 3 documented this through barrier navigation and inclusive business model design, respectively, Cluster 2 through hybrid production systems, Cluster 4 through low-infrastructure digital solutions, Cluster 5 through community-based resilience, and Cluster 6 through social-first adoption motivations. This convergence across otherwise distinct research domains was theoretically significant because it suggested that informal-formal integration was not a context-specific feature of any single CEBMI approach but a structural prerequisite of all CEBMI pathways in emerging economies. This finding had direct implications for the framework proposed in Section 3.6, where Contextual Embeddedness was positioned as the foundational dimension because it captured this universal integration requirement [49, 50]. The second cross-cutting finding concerned diverging theoretical emphasis between older and newer clusters. Clusters 1, 2, and 3 (the most cited and oldest) were primarily grounded in institutional theory, stakeholder theory, and resource-based frameworks, while Clusters 4, 5, and 6 (lower-cited but higher link strength) drew more heavily on dynamic capabilities, resilience theory, and social innovation perspectives. This theoretical divergence signaled a maturation trajectory, with the field progressively moving from descriptive barrier-mapping toward explanatory models of capability development and systemic transition, as confirmed by recent research agendas on CE adoption in SMEs [51] and circular entrepreneurial ecosystems [52]. The third cross-cutting finding concerned asymmetric geographic representation. The dominant cases across all the clusters were from Brazil, India, China, and Kenya, with Sub-Saharan Africa (other than Kenya), Southeast Asia, and the Middle East substantially underrepresented despite comprising large shares of global emerging-economy activity. This geographic concentration created a risk of overgeneralizing the findings from specific national and regional institutional contexts — particularly since institutional void patterns, informal sector structures, and regulatory environments differed substantially across these regions [53, 54]. Four open-ended questions emerged from this cross-cluster comparison that the existing literature did not adequately address. First, what are the conditions under which CEBMI implementation can transition from cluster-specific approaches (e.g., manufacturing-focused or resilience-focused) to integrated multi-cluster approaches that operate simultaneously across several CEBMI dimensions. Current research treated the clusters as independent domains, but circular economy transitions in practice require their co-deployment — a design challenge that the literature on smart circular economies in South Asia [53] and ecosystem missing links [55] are only beginning to address. Second, which cluster-specific CEBMI approaches are scalable beyond their original organizational or geographic context, and what institutional conditions are necessary for scaling. Research on upscaling niche circular innovations [56] identified this as a central gap. Most documented cases were at SME or local community scales, and the transition mechanisms to sectoral or national scales remain poorly understood. Third, what measurement frameworks are adequate for capturing the multi-dimensional value creation (economic, environmental, and social) that the literature consistently identifies as distinctive to CEBMI in emerging economies. The absence of standardized measurement approaches was noted across Clusters 1, 3, and 6 as a critical barrier to cross-study comparison and policy-relevant evidence generation. Fourth, how do the cluster-specific enablers and barriers interact when multiple CEBMI dimensions are pursued simultaneously. Clusters 1 through 6 identified distinct drivers and obstacles, but with no systematic analysis of how, for example, digital transformation enablers (Cluster 4) interact with social-impact imperatives (Cluster 6) or how resilience strategies (Cluster 5) modify the institutional void navigation challenges of Cluster 1. This systemic blind spot must be addressed to move the field from cluster-specific insights to an integrated understanding of CEBMI implementation pathways in emerging economies [57, 58].

3.4 Thematic focus through keyword co-occurrence

Figure 5 presents the keyword co-occurrence network for CEBMI research in emerging economies, revealing the conceptual structure and thematic focus of the study. This visualization revealed the central position of "circular economy" as the core concept, with six interconnected thematic clusters focusing on implementation barriers, manufacturing contexts, business model innovation, digital transformation, economic resilience, and sustainability integration. Table 4 presents the six keyword co-occurrence clusters, along with their respective themes, key keywords, frequency of occurrence, and total link strength.

The thematic analysis through keyword co-occurrence confirmed the patterns identified in the bibliographic coupling analysis, demonstrating the emerging research directions, particularly in digital transformation and economic resilience, that distinguished CEBMI research in emerging economies from that in developed contexts. Three specific features of Figure 5 and Table 4 were selected for further analytical interpretation. First, the extreme centrality of “circular economy” (occurrence: 37, link strength: 38) relative to all the other keywords —appearing nearly ten times more frequently than the next most common substantive keyword — was theoretically meaningful rather than trivially descriptive. This asymmetry indicated that CEBMI research in emerging economies lacked mature mid-level theoretical constructs, with the field converging on the CE concept without developing a settled vocabulary of context-specific mechanisms. This contrasted with the pattern observed in more mature sustainability research domains, where mid-level concepts (e.g., “dynamic capabilities,” “institutional voids”) achieved comparable keyword frequencies to core concepts [59, 60]. Thus, the field requires the framework proposed in Section 3.6 to provide shared conceptual vocabulary at the mid-level of abstraction. Second, the high link strength of “sustainability” in Cluster 6 (15) — the highest of any non-circular economy keyword — combined with its co-occurrence with “innovation” (3) rather than “social impact” or “poverty reduction” revealed a theoretical tension. The empirical evidence in Sections 3.3.6 and 3.5 suggested that social value drives adoption in emerging economies more strongly than in developed ones, but the keyword network did not produce a corresponding theoretical vocabulary for social value in CE contexts. This gap between the empirical findings and theoretical codification should be addressed by future research. Third, the presence of “DEMATEL” as a recurring keyword in Cluster 1 (occurrence: 2, link strength: 3) was theoretically instructive. DEMATEL is a multi-criteria decision-making method used to map causal relationships among implementation barriers. Our results indicated that a subset of CEBMI research in emerging economies is moving toward causal modeling of implementation pathways — a methodological development suggesting that the field is beginning to enter the theory-testing phase, as also noted in resilience-focused integrative reviews [61].

Figure 5. Keyword co-occurrence network for CEBMI research in emerging economies

Table 4. Keyword co-occurrence analysis

The bibliometric clusters and keyword patterns generated three aggregated theoretical implications that transcended single clusters and pointed toward the development direction of CEBMI theory. First, the combined evidence from Sections 3.3 and 3.4 indicated that CEBMI in emerging economies was characterized by “institutional bricolage”: firms do not simply adapt existing CE frameworks to resource-constrained contexts, but actively construct novel institutional arrangements, stakeholder networks, and resource combinations that have no direct counterpart in developed-economy CE practice. This is not a deficiency but a distinctive theoretical contribution — the field is generating original institutional solutions that extend rather than merely apply existing theory [62, 63]. Second, the consistent finding across all clusters that social value is a co-primary rather than secondary strategic objective in emerging-economy CEBMI challenges the implicit theoretical hierarchy of most CE frameworks, which place environmental and economic values above social value in their design logic. This inversion has implications for how CE performance should be measured, how stakeholder priorities should be weighted in business model design, and how policy frameworks should be structured to support CE adoption — implications that the literature has identified but not yet translated into revised theoretical models or measurement instruments. Third, the co-occurrence of high link strength keywords such as “sustainability” and “industry 4.0” with low-frequency occurrence terms such as “emerging markets,” “barriers,” and “resilience” revealed that the CEBMI field in emerging economies remains at the intersection of multiple theoretical traditions without achieving synthesis. The field simultaneously draws on industrial ecology, institutional theory, strategic management, and social innovation — but has not yet developed integrative mid-level constructs that connect these traditions in a coherent theoretical architecture. This motivated the integrated framework proposed in Section 3.6, designed to provide that missing synthesis, by specifying the hierarchical causal relationships among the theoretical perspectives rather than treating them as parallel contributions [64, 56].

3.5 Comparative analysis and distinctive characteristics of circular economy business model innovation in emerging economies

Our bibliometric and content analyses identified significant differences in CEBMI implementation between developed and emerging economies across multiple dimensions, as summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Comparative analysis of CEBMI implementation characteristics

This comparative analysis provided a foundation for understanding the implementation of CEBMI in emerging economies and revealed four distinctive characteristics that differentiated it from patterns observed in developed economies.

3.5.1 Informal sector integration

The informal sector constitutes over 50% of economic activity and waste management operations in emerging economies [65, 67], compared to typically less than 10% in developed economies. CEBMI in developed nations generally operates through formalized waste management systems, with the successful implementation of government oversight and corporate-led initiatives in emerging economies critically dependent on integration with informal sectors. Effective circular business models in emerging economy contexts incorporate informal waste collectors and community networks as essential partners in the value chain.

For example, in Kenya, Horvath et al. [42] documented how plastic recycling companies achieved higher collection rates and improved material quality by formally partnering with informal waste picker associations, providing them with training, equipment, and fair pricing. The Saahas Zero Waste initiative has also been established as a successful circular business model in India by formalizing contracts with over 2,000 informal waste collectors, increasing their incomes by 25% while achieving a 90% waste diversion rate [35].

This characteristic extends stakeholder theory by challenging traditional power-legitimacy-urgency frameworks [68] that classify informal actors as "latent" or "discretionary" stakeholders. Our findings suggested that informal actors possessed critical resources and capabilities essential to CEBMI success, despite lacking formal power and legitimacy, thereby repositioning them as "definitive" stakeholders central to value creation.

3.5.2 Institutional void navigation

CEBMI in emerging economies operates under pronounced institutional voids, including absent or weakly-enforced regulations, limited contract enforcement, and fragmented market-supporting services. In developed economies, regulatory pressure typically drives circular adoption. In Thailand, however, firms cannot rely on these levers, and successful adopters have to construct their own governance arrangements through industry associations, multi-stakeholder networks, and co-designed standards to fill the gaps left by formal institutions.

Chiappetta Jabbour et al. [33] demonstrated that Brazilian manufacturing firms created multi-stakeholder governance platforms to establish shared quality standards, verification processes, and dispute-resolution mechanisms in the absence of effective government regulations. This characteristic extended institutional theory by demonstrating how firms in emerging economies actively construct alternative institutional arrangements rather than merely responding to institutional pressures.

3.5.3 Resource constraint adaptations

CEBMI in emerging economies demonstrates distinctive adaptations to resource limitations that manifest specifically at the business model level rather than at the process level. Successful models employ bricolage and frugal innovation as business model design principles, reconfiguring available resources into novel value-creation architectures. Dost et al. [6] provided direct evidence from Malaysia, documenting how emerging-market firms, implementing circular approaches through entrepreneurial bricolage, developed distinctive business model configurations, specifically as value propositions built around the revalorization of materials discorded by resource-rich competitors and delivered through stakeholder networks that converted informal sector actors into formal supply chain partners. This demonstrated business model innovation in the strict sense, not process efficiency improvement, and fundamentally redesigned value proposal, creation, and capture. In the same vein, Phuthong [69] developed a CEBMI framework specifically for community enterprises processing agricultural waste in Thailand, demonstrating how resource-constrained organizations in the Global South constructed viable circular business models by embedding social value creation into the core of their value architecture rather than treating it as a peripheral sustainability objective.

This characteristic extended the resource-based view by reconceptualizing resource constraints as potential sources of distinctive capabilities and competitive advantage. The traditional RBV focuses on the strategic value of resource abundance, but our findings highlighted how scarcity can drive innovative approaches to resource utilization, creating unique capabilities that are difficult for resource-rich competitors to replicate.

3.5.4 Social value creation emphasis

CEBMI in developed economies primarily emphasizes environmental and economic benefits, but successful models in emerging economies explicitly integrate social value creation as a core strategic element rather than a peripheral consideration. Chineme et al. [46] demonstrated how women-led recycling enterprises in Nigeria designed business models that explicitly targeted employment creation for marginalized groups while achieving environmental goals.

This characteristic extended the triple bottom line theory by elevating social outcomes from peripheral considerations to core strategic elements. In an emerging economy, social value creation is crucial to the successful implementation of CEBMI, requiring the development of expanded theoretical models that explicitly incorporate social impact dimensions that resonate with environmental and economic factors.

3.6 Integrated framework for circular economy business model innovation in emerging economies

Based on our comprehensive analysis, an integrated conceptual framework for CEBMI in emerging economies was proposed (Figure 6). This framework synthesized the distinctive characteristics identified in our analysis and illustrated the dynamic interplay among contextual factors, implementation approaches, and outcomes that were unique to emerging economy environments.

3.6.1 Theoretical foundations of the framework

Our integrated framework synthesized four theoretical perspectives, particularly relevant to emerging economy contexts, as (1) Institutional void theory [8] that informs the contextual embeddedness dimension, highlighting how firms must navigate gaps in regulatory frameworks and formal institutions, (2) Stakeholder network theory [70] that underpins the multi-stakeholder value creation dimension, emphasizing the complex interconnections between formal and informal actors, (3) Resource orchestration theory [71] that supports the adaptive implementation pathways dimension, explaining how firms can create value despite resource constraints, and (4) Evolutionary capabilities perspective [72] that grounds the evolutionary development dimension, documenting how organizational capabilities develop incrementally over time. These four theories are not parallel or interchangeable. They operate at different levels of analysis and are connected through a specific causal logic that reflects the progressive challenges firms face when implementing CEBMI in emerging economies. The hierarchical relationships among these theories are as follows. Institutional void theory operates at the foundational level, establishing the constraints within which all other theoretical mechanisms must function. Firms in emerging economies cannot rely on formal governance structures, contract enforcement, and regulatory infrastructure assumed by most mainstream business model frameworks, with institutional voids defining the boundary conditions for all subsequent decisions [73, 74]. This foundational constraint structurally distinguishes CEBMI in emerging economies from developed-economy counterparts and justifies the Contextual Embeddedness dimension as the base layer of the framework. Building on this institutional foundation, stakeholder network theory operates at the relational level, explaining how firms respond to institutional voids by constructing alternative governance arrangements through multi-actor collaboration. Chiappetta Jabbour et al. [33], Sahu and Choudhary [75] found that when formal institutions are absent in agricultural CE transitions, stakeholder networks serve as a functional substitute — providng the shared standards, trust mechanisms, and coordination structures that markets and regulators would otherwise supply. Stakeholder theory thus translates institutional constraints into an actionable relational strategy, with the Multi-stakeholder Value Creation dimension logically following and depending on the Contextual Embeddedness dimension. Once the relational architecture has been established, resource orchestration theory operates at the firm capability level, addressing how organizations strategically acquire, accumulate, and deploy resources despite the constraints identified at the institutional and relational levels. Drawing on Sirmon et al.’s [71] resource orchestration framework and extending to CE contexts [76] in developing-economy SMEs, this theory explains why effective CEBMI requires possessing resources and then actively bundling and leveraging them across the three pathways — informal integration, institutional development, and frugal innovation — that constitute the Adaptive Implementation Pathways dimension. Resource orchestration thus converts the relational capital generated through stakeholder networks into implementable circular strategies. Finally, the evolutionary capabilities perspective operates at the temporal level, explaining how the institutional navigation, relational investments, and resource orchestration activities described by the first three theories accumulate into organizational capabilities over time. Chizaryfard et al. [77] and Schaltegger et al. [78] found that CE transformation in emerging economies is a path-dependent, co-evolutionary process in which each stage of capability development builds on organizational learning from previous stages, and is captured by the Evolutionary Development dimension through its four sequential stages of resource efficiency, value chain reconfiguration, business model innovation, and systemic transformation. The four theories form a nested, hierarchical causal chain, with institutional constraints defining the operating environment (institutional void theory), stakeholder networks providing the governance substitute (stakeholder theory), resource orchestration converting relationships into implementation capability (resource orchestration theory), and evolutionary development explaining how these capabilities accumulate into sustainable competitive advantage over time (evolutionary capabilities perspective). Each theory addresses a different causal question. Specifically, what are the constraints, how are they governed, how are resources deployed, and how do capabilities evolve. Each answer presupposes the preceding one, creating a genuinely integrated rather than parallel theoretical architecture [79, 80].

Figure 6. Integrated framework for CEBMI in emerging economies