JOURNAL METRICS

CiteScore 2023: 2.2 ℹCiteScore:

CiteScore is the number of citations received by a journal in one year to documents published in the three previous years, divided by the number of documents indexed in Scopus published in those same three years.

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2023: 0.27 ℹSCImago Journal Rank (SJR):

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2023: 0.637 ℹSource Normalized Impact per Paper(SNIP):

SNIP measures a source’s contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field. It helps you make a direct comparison of sources in different subject fields. SNIP takes into account characteristics of the source's subject field, which is the set of documents citing that source.

qqtu_pian_20240428144739.png

Global Circular Economy Practice: Drivers, Barriers and Strategies for Food System in Indonesia

Hari Purnomo^* | Rezki Amelia Aminuddin A.P. | Amarria Dilla Sari | Feris Firdaus

Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Industrial Technology, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Sleman 55584, Indonesia

Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Islam Makassar, Makassar 90245, Indonesia

Corresponding Author Email:

haripurnomo@uii.ac.id

Received:

15 June 2024

Revised:

18 August 2024

Accepted:

22 August 2024

Available online:

30 September 2024

| Citation

ijsdp_19.09_16.pdf

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract:

The urgent need to overhaul food systems towards more regenerative, inclusive, and sustainable approaches has become a critical concern, particularly with the goal of providing healthy food for a global population that will exceed 9 billion by 2050 and an Indonesian population that will reach 300 million. With the current destructive agricultural framework, significant environmental damage is not the only consequence; there is also a decline in social quality within Indonesia's rural and urban communities. This study aims to design a circular economy implementation strategy formulated through SWOT analysis in order to build a sustainable food system in Indonesia. The research methods used are Systematic Literature Review (SLR), Pareto analysis, and SWOT analysis. The results of this SWOT analysis were used as recommendations to develop Indonesia's food system with a circular economy approach, similar to what has been developed at the global level This SWOT strategy shows that by leveraging existing strengths, addressing weaknesses, capitalizing on opportunities, and overcoming threats, Indonesia can develop a more sustainable and resilient food system through a circular economy approach.

Keywords:

circular economy, strategies, food system, SLR, Pareto, SWOT

1. Introduction

The global food system, driven by the food and beverage industry, significantly impacts sustainability, contributing to 60% of biodiversity loss, 60% of land conversion, 70% of overnutrition, and 30% of climate change. By 2050, unsustainable food production could lead to the loss of around 5 million lives annually [1]. The food and agriculture sectors have a more pronounced impact on land, water resources, employment, and economic activity than other sectors [2]. In Indonesia, energy consumption in the food and beverage sector nearly doubled between 1980 and 2015 [3].

With a projected global population of 9 billion by 2050, maintaining current food systems could cause significant environmental and social harm. Rural agriculture must shift to regenerative practices, and urban areas need to adopt healthier diets, reduce food waste, and create a nutrient cycle. This urgency is heightened by Indonesia’s large population that will reach 300 million, necessitating a regenerative and sustainable food sector. This study utilizes SWOT analysis to assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in implementing such strategies [4].

The cornerstone of the Circular Economy (CE) is systemic change, which starts from "rethinking" ways to extend the lifespan and life cycle of a material and product [5]. This shift requires collaboration among producers, consumers, and governments [6]. The CE paradigm aims to prevent environmental degradation while ensuring the economic and social well-being of current and future generations [7, 8]. Initially based on 3R principles (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle), the CE now includes 9R strategies (Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle, Recover energy) [8-12].

Agriculture consumes about 200 Exajoules of energy annually, with food production responsible for 30% of global energy use. The food system is also the largest land user, and over one-third of food produced is lost or wasted, wasting essential resources amid increasing food demand [13, 14].

The global food system, and the food and beverage industry behind it, is directly involved in some of the most pressing sustainability challenges, contributing to 60% of biodiversity loss, 60% of land conversion, 70% of overnutrition, and 30% of climate change [15]. The same report estimates that by 2050, around 5 million lives could be lost annually as a result of unsustainable food production processes [16].

In the United States, the food manufacturing sector was found to be the worst actor and responsible for the "highest environmental impacts" including 20% of national greenhouse gas emissions and 12% of water withdrawal [17, 18]. In places like Indonesia, the share of energy consumption in the food and beverage sector almost doubled between 1980 and 2015.

The global food system will face unprecedented pressure. It is estimated that by 2030, global population growth and the impact of climate change will increase the need for food production by up to 50% [19]. By 2030, the food and beverage industry will collectively need 45% more energy and 30% more water for agriculture. By 2050, the global population is expected to increase further to 9.3 billion people with an increase in food demand by 60% [20].

Global climate change, population growth and food security challenges are driving the need to transition towards a more sustainable food system through a circular economy approach, which focuses on reducing waste and improving resource efficiency. While this concept has been widely applied in developed countries, its application in food systems in developing countries, particularly Indonesia, still faces various challenges and has not been empirically studied.

This study aims to identify key challenges and opportunities in the implementation of circular economy in Indonesia, evaluate the effectiveness of existing practices, and analyze the influence of national policies and local socio-economic conditions on the success of this implementation.

The research is grounded in recent literature on circular economy, particularly in the food system. A recent study by Yang et al. [21] shows that the implementation of circular economy in the food sector can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30%. On the other hand, Yadav et al. [22] highlighted challenges in organic waste management in developing countries that may hinder the effectiveness of circular economy. Based on this framework, this research will integrate SWOT and Pareto analysis to identify implementation strategies that are most relevant to the Indonesian context.

The reason for conducting this study is that a circular economy not only offers Indonesia the opportunity to reduce waste and improve the environment, but it can also become a vital element in the country’s economic recovery efforts. Like governments around the world, policymakers in Indonesia are working to support the economic recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the main challenge is whether these recovery policies will reinforce the existing "business-as-usual" economic structures with their negative impacts on the environment, or whether there is an opportunity to "build back better" by optimizing the balanced benefits between the economy and the environment [23]. Since circular economy practices in Indonesia's food sector have become an inevitability, the purpose of this study is to recommend strategies for circular economy practices in Indonesia's food system based on the key drivers (strengths and opportunities) and barriers (weaknesses and threats).

2. Research Methods

2.1 Systematic Literature Review (SLR)

To conduct a thorough literature review on the application of circular economy in food systems, a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was conducted. This process included several steps. First, a literature search was conducted using a set of predefined keywords and phrases [24, 25], such as “circular economy food system, drivers and barriers circular economy, circular economy strategy, implementation of circular economy food system, socio-technical system for food system”. Relevant literature was identified through several academic databases in Scopus. Specialized databases relevant to environmental science and food systems were also checked to ensure a comprehensive review.

The eligibility of articles included in the study was determined using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria:

Inclusion criteria included reviewed articles, research papers and reports published within the last five years, with a focus on circular economy practices, food systems and sustainability, and research relevant to the Indonesian context or comparable regions.
Exclusion criteria included non-peer-reviewed sources, articles published outside the last five years, and studies not directly related to circular economy or food systems.

1.png

Figure 1. SLR

Based on Figure 1, At the identification stage in this study, a literature search was carried out using the keywords "circular economy food system, drivers and barriers circular economy, circular economy strategy, implementation of circular economy food system, socio-technical system for food system". This search was performed in the Scopus database and yielded 687 records. Next, in the screening stage, of the initial 687 records, 489 records were screened by checking the title and abstract to ensure relevance to the topic under review. Of the 489 records screened, 231 reports were identified for retraction or full text to be obtained. Of the 231 reports withdrawn, 210 reports were evaluated for eligibility by assessing the full text to ensure that they met predetermined inclusion criteria. At the inclusion stage, of the 210 reports evaluated, 172 studies were included in the final review. Of the 172 included studies, 159 reports of these studies were included in the final review, demonstrating a rigorous and methodical screening stage to ensure only relevant studies were included in this systematic review [26, 27].

2.2 Pareto analysis

Pareto Analysis, grounded in the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule) [28], was employed to pinpoint the most significant factors influencing the implementation of a circular economy within Indonesia's food system. This method prioritizes issues by identifying the 20% of causes that account for 80% of the effects, thereby focusing on the most impactful barriers and opportunities [29]. Data on various challenges and prospects related to circular economy practices were systematically collected from the reviewed literature. Subsequently, a Pareto chart was created to visually depict these factors, ranked in descending order of their significance [30, 31]. This chart effectively highlighted the most critical elements requiring targeted intervention and strategic action to enhance the implementation of circular economy principles in the food system.

2.3 Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis

SWOT Analysis was utilized to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats associated with implementing a circular economy in Indonesia's food system. This strategic tool facilitates a comprehensive understanding of both internal and external factors that affect the success of circular economy practices. Data for SWOT Analysis were collected through a SLR, expert interviews, and stakeholder feedback [32]. The data were categorized into Strengths (internal positive factors), Weaknesses (internal negative factors), Opportunities (external positive factors), and Threats (external negative factors), which aided in formulating targeted strategies for effective implementation [33]. To ensure validity and reliability, the study employed rigorous methods. Internal validity was maintained by cross-checking data from multiple sources and applying consistent criteria for evaluating the relevance and quality of included studies [34]. External validity was considered by evaluating the generalizability of the findings to other regions and food systems similar to Indonesia. Reliability was assured through standardized data collection and evaluation methods, involvement of independent reviewers, and resolution of discrepancies through discussions [35]. Quality assurance was further strengthened by cross-validating results with existing studies and employing statistical techniques to confirm the accuracy of the findings.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Factor identification and categorization

The circular economy in the food system aims to reduce waste and maximize the use of resources through recycling, reuse and extending the life of food products [36, 37]. The factors that influence this system can be categorized into several main aspects. First, in the resource and raw materials category, sustainable agricultural practices that reduce the use of chemicals and maximize yields through organic methods are essential [7, 23]. The efficiency of water use in irrigation and food production as well as the use of renewable energy in the food production and distribution process are also significant factors [38]. Second, in the production and manufacturing process category, innovative food processing technologies, which reduce production waste and increase efficiency, as well as the use of environmentally friendly packaging, such as recyclable or biodegradable materials, are key aspects that need to be considered [39].

Apart from that, distribution and logistics factors also influence the circular economy in the food system. Supply chain optimization through information and communication technology can reduce waste and increase distribution efficiency [40, 41]. A decentralized and community-based distribution system can reduce carbon footprints and ensure fairer food distribution. In the consumption and reuse category, sustainable consumption patterns and food waste management are crucial factors. Consumer education about the importance of reducing food waste and choosing sustainable products is very necessary. Reusing and recycling food waste, such as compost and biogas production, can reduce environmental impact and maximize the value of each stage in the food life cycle. By identifying and categorizing these factors, the application of circular economy principles in food systems can be optimized to achieve greater sustainability.

Table 1. Drivers for circular economy practice in food system

No.	Drivers	Characteristic	Stakeholders	Frequency of Mention	Percentage of Total Mentions	Country	References
1	Food Price Instability	Eksternal (Threats)	Farmer Government Trader Consumer	25	19.5%	Denmark	[3, 13, 14], [42-46]
2	Resource Efficiency	Internal (Strengths)	Farmer Food Producer Government Food industry	15	11.7%	Netherlands, Finlandia	[47-52]
3	New Market Opportunities	Eksternal (Opportunities)	Food Producer Government Consumer Investors	10	7.8%	Singapura	[53-55]
4	Consumer Awareness	Eksternal (Opportunities)	Consumer Environmental NGO Government	12	9.4%	Prancis	[13, 14, 43, 56]
5	Concern for Food Waste	Internal (Strengths)	Farmer Food Producer Environmental NGO	8	6.3%	Thailand	[40, 57, 58]
6	Climate change	Eksternal (Threats)	Farmer Government Researchers and Scientists	30	23.4%	Sweden	[14, 37, 59-64]
7	Scarcity of Natural Resources	Eksternal (Threats)	Farmer Government Environmental NGO	20	15.6%	Norway	[54, 55, 65, 66]
8	Food security	Internal (Strengths)	Farmer Food Producer Government Consumer Humanitarian NGO International Organization	18	14.1%	Germany	[45, 57, 58, 67-72]

Based on Table 1, food price instability is an external threat influenced by factors such as climate change, natural disasters and political unrest, with 25 mentions from Denmark [3, 13, 14, 42-46].

Meanwhile, resource efficiency, which includes optimal use of water, energy, land and fertilizer, was identified as an internal strength, with 15 mentions from the Netherlands and Finland [47-52, 72].

New market opportunities, such as demand for organic and sustainable products, were identified as external opportunities with 10 mentions from Singapore [53-55, 73].

Efforts to reduce food waste and recycle food scraps are considered an internal strength with 8 mentions from Thailand [40, 57, 58].

Climate change, which affects food production through increasing the frequency of natural disasters, was identified as an external threat with 30 mentions from Sweden [14, 37, 59-64].

Scarcity of natural resources due to overexploitation and increased demand was identified as an external threat, with 20 mentions from Norway [53-55, 65, 66].

Lastly, food security, which includes consistent access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food, was identified as an internal strength with 18 mentions from Germany [45, 57, 58, 67-72]. The visualization of the Main Driver can be seen in Figure 2 below.

2.png

Figure 2. Pareto chart for main drivers of circular economy practice in food system

Table 2. Coding of main drivers

Main Drivers		Definition
MD1	Climate change	Changes in global weather and climate patterns that have a significant impact on food production, such as increasing the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, droughts and floods
MD2	Food Price Instability	Fluctuations in global food commodity prices are influenced by factors such as climate change, natural disasters, political turmoil, and supply-demand imbalances
MD3	Scarcity of Natural Resources	Natural resource scarcity refers to conditions in which certain natural resources become increasingly scarce or difficult to access due to overexploitation, increased demand, or a decline in the quality of the resource
MD4	Food security	Food security encompasses the ability of a country, region, or individual to consistently access sufficient, safe, and nutritious food
MD5	Resource Efficiency	Optimal use of natural resources (water, energy, land, fertilizer) and minimization of resource losses throughout the food supply chain
MD6	Consumer Awareness	Increased consumer understanding and awareness of the social and environmental impacts of food choices
MD7	New Market Opportunities	There is emerging consumer demand for more sustainable food products and services, such as organic, local, fair trade and minimal packaging.
MD8	Concern for Food Waste	Efforts to reduce food waste, recycle leftover food, and utilize it as a resource

The definition of each main drivers can be seen in Table 2 which explains that global food price fluctuations are often triggered by various external factors, such as climate change, natural disasters, political instability, and supply-demand imbalances. Previous studies show that climate change has a direct impact on food price volatility by disrupting food production and distribution [3, 43, 44, 46]. However, Lehtokunnas et al. [15] highlight that although food price volatility can be a major threat to farmers and consumers, appropriate government policies can mitigate its negative impacts [46]. This discrepancy suggests that further research is needed to understand how food price volatility can be managed more effectively, especially in the context of Indonesia which is vulnerable to natural disasters.

Optimal use of resources along the food supply chain can increase efficiency and reduce waste, which are considered strengths in the context of a circular economy. Bianchi and Cordella [47] and Barros et al. [74] emphasize the importance of resource efficiency in reducing the environmental impact of food production. However, Norton et al. [49] stated that the biggest challenge in implementing resource efficiency is the lack of adoption of advanced technologies in several countries, including Indonesia. This shows that although resource efficiency offers great opportunities, its implementation requires strong technological support and proactive government policies to encourage adoption at the industry level.

Consumer awareness of the social and environmental impacts of food choices is also an external opportunity, with 12 mentions from France [13, 14, 43, 56]. There is a growing demand from consumers for more sustainable food products, such as organic, local, fair trade, and minimalist packaging. Barros et al. [74] and Broccardo et al. [54] show that these new market opportunities create economic incentives for food producers to adopt more environmentally friendly practices. However, Mehmood et al. [53] emphasized that despite the promising market opportunity, a major challenge lies in the higher price of sustainable products, which may deter consumers in developing countries like Indonesia from switching to them. This mismatch indicates that further research is needed to identify the best way to bridge the gap between consumer demand for sustainability and affordability in the Indonesian market.

Efforts to reduce food waste and utilize it as a resource are one of the strengths in implementing a circular economy. Klingbeil and Byiringiro [58] and Lavelli [40] show that effective food waste management can reduce environmental impacts and increase resource efficiency. However, Kongs et al. [55] note that this implementation still faces major challenges, especially in developing countries like Indonesia, where infrastructure for recycling food waste is still very limited. This difference in results suggests that, while there is great potential to reduce food waste, a more holistic approach supported by adequate policy and infrastructure investment is needed to ensure success in a country like Indonesia.

Climate change has significant impacts on food production, such as increasing the frequency and intensity of natural disasters. Researches by Azimli and Doni [62] and Johannsdottir [64] found that increasing global temperatures and changing weather patterns have led to a decline in agricultural yields in some regions. On the other hand, Maja & Ayano showed that adaptation to climate change through advanced agricultural technologies can mitigate these negative impacts [63]. However, in the Indonesian context, the application of these technologies is still constrained by limited infrastructure and access to finance for smallholder farmers. Therefore, further research is needed to identify effective strategies in addressing the challenges of climate change, especially those adapted to local conditions in Indonesia.

Natural resource scarcity is becoming an increasingly urgent threat amidst increasing demand and declining resource quality. Broccardo et al. [54] and Hina et al. [66] found found that overexploitation and increasing demand have led to a decline in the availability of critical resources such as water and soil [54, 66]. On the other hand, Wang et al. emphasized that this scarcity can be addressed by more efficient and innovative resource management, such as through sustainable agricultural practices and water management technologies [57]. However, in the Indonesian context, limited access to technology and financial resources hinder efforts to effectively manage this scarcity. This points to the need for further research to explore solutions that are locally appropriate and that can be adopted by smallholder farmers in Indonesia. Natural resource scarcity is becoming an increasingly urgent threat amidst increasing demand and declining resource quality. Broccardo et al. and Hina et al. found that overexploitation and increasing demand have led to a decline in the availability of critical resources such as water and soil.

On the other hand, Wang et al. [57] emphasized that this scarcity can be addressed by more efficient and innovative resource management, such as through sustainable agricultural practices and water management technologies. However, in the Indonesian context, limited access to technology and financial resources hinder efforts to effectively manage this scarcity. This points to the need for further research to explore solutions that are locally appropriate and that can be adopted by smallholder farmers in Indonesia.

Food security encompasses the ability of a country, region or individual to consistently access sufficient, safe and nutritious food. Alareeni et al. [76] and Vågsholm et al. [69] emphasize the importance of food security as a key factor in societal well-being. However, Boon and Anuga [74] point out that food security is often disrupted by external factors such as climate change, political instability, and food price fluctuations. In Indonesia, food security challenges are becoming increasingly complex with the increasing population and changing consumption patterns. Therefore, further research is needed to develop strategies that can improve food security in Indonesia, taking into account the specific challenges the country faces.

Table 3. Barriers for circular economy practice in food system

No.	Barriers	Characteristic	Stakeholders	Frequency of Mention	Percentage of Total Mentions	Country	References
1	Infrastructure Limitations	Internal (Weakness)	Government (Department of Transport, Department of City Planning), Construction Companies, Infrastructure Operators (Road Managers, Airports, Ports), Communities	20	14.4%	Indonesia, Filipina, Malaysia, Amerika Serikat, China, India, Australia, Afrika Selatan	[53, 55, 65, 77-81]
2	Policies and Regulations	Eksternal (Opportunities)	Government (Environmental Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Trade, Regulatory Agency), Business Associations, Universities	25	18%	Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Amerika Serikat, Brasil	[82-94]
3	Implementation Costs	Internal (Weakness)	Company Management, Finance Department, Shareholders, Government (through incentives or financial support)	22	15.8%	Kamboja, Myanmar, Timor Leste, Amerika Serikat, China, Australia	[95-101]
4	Awareness and Education	Internal (Strengths)	Universities, Environmental NGOs, Community Organizations, Media, Consumer Associations, Government (through educational campaigns)	18	12.9%	Singapura, Brunei, Vietnam, Brasil	[15, 65, 102-108]
5	Changes in Culture and Consumer Habits	Eksternal (Threats)	Industry Associations, NGOs, Universities, Community Organizations, Media, Consumer Associations, Government (through outreach campaigns)	15	10.8%	Malaysia, Thailand, Filipina	[109-112]
6	Supply Chain Complexity	Eksternal (Threats)	Manufacturers, Distributors, Retailers, Logistics (Delivery Companies, Warehouses), Government (through supply chain policies)	30	21.6%	Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand	[113-117]
7	Dependence on Conventional Business Models	Internal (Strengths)	Business Owners, Company Management, Shareholders, Industry, Government (through incentives or regulations for business innovation)	12	8.6%	Laos, Kamboja, Timor Leste	[44, 118-120]
8	Technological Challenges	Eksternal (Opportunities)	Higher Education (Department of Engineering, Technology and Computer Science), Technology Providers, Industry Associations, Government (through research and development programs)	17	12.2%	Myanmar, Filipina, Brunei, Brasil	[50, 56, 121]

Some research on barriers in other countries has been summarized in Table 3 with a visualization of the priorities that are the main barriers shown in Figure 3. The state of the main obstacles to implementing a circular economy shows that there are various challenges that must be faced. Infrastructure limitations are one of the significant obstacles, related to deficiencies in the necessary networks and facilities, involving the government, construction companies and infrastructure operators, which was mentioned 20 times in various countries including Indonesia and the United States [53, 55, 65, 77-81]. Unsupportive policies and regulations are also a major obstacle, identified 25 times in Vietnam, Thailand, and Brazil, involving environmental agencies and business associations [82-94].

Implementation costs associated with initial investments in new technology and infrastructure are an internal barrier facing corporate management and governments, mentioned 22 times in countries such as Cambodia and China [95-101]. Lack of public awareness and education about circular economy practices is also an obstacle, involving universities, NGOs and the media, with 18 mentions in Singapore and Brazil [15, 65, 102-108]. Changes in consumer culture and habits are an external challenge, involving industry associations and government, mentioned 15 times in Malaysia and the Philippines [64, 112-116].

Supply chain complexity hinders the efficient implementation of a circular economy, found 30 times in Indonesia and Thailand, involving producers and the government [113-117], conventional business models hinders the shift to circular business models, involving business owners and government, mentioned 12 times in Laos and Timor Leste [44, 20, 50, 69, 118-120]. Finally, technological challenges are external barriers, involving higher education and technology providers, mentioned 17 times in Myanmar and Brazil [50, 101, 121]. This analysis highlights how important collaboration between various stakeholders is to overcome these obstacles and successfully implement a circular economy.

The definition of each main barrier is presented in Table 4, which explain that although the main barriers to implementing a circular economy, such as limited infrastructure, unsupportive policies, and high implementation costs, are often perceived as significant obstacles, some countries have shown that these barriers can be overcome with the right strategies [42, 101, 122]. Collaborative efforts between governments, companies, and educational institutions in countries such as Indonesia and Brazil have successfully addressed some of these issues, demonstrating that with supportive policies, technological innovation, and increased public awareness, circular economy implementation can be achieved . However, these challenges remain major obstacles in many countries, including the United States and developing countries. Infrastructure limitations, unsupportive policies, and high costs continue to be significant barriers, even with collaborative efforts [123]. This suggests that, despite progress, a more in-depth and systematic approach is needed to effectively address these issues. This analysis highlights that while there is potential for improvement, these challenges still require attention and more comprehensive solutions to achieve successful circular economy implementation.

3.png

Figure 3. Pareto chart for main barriers of circular economy practice in food system

Table 4. Coding of main barriers

Main Barrier		Definition
MB1	Supply Chain Complexity	Difficulty in managing long, diversified and complex supply chains in a sustainable and efficient manners
MB2	Policies and Regulations	Barriers resulting from government regulations or policies that do not support or even hinder the adoption of circular practices
MB3	Implementation Costs	Costs associated with implementing circular economy practices, including initial investments in new technology and infrastructure
MB4	Infrastructure Limitations	Physical constraints or deficiencies in the networks and facilities required to support circular economy practices
MB5	Awareness and Education	Lack of public knowledge and understanding of the importance and ways of implementing circular economy practices
MB6	Technological Challenges	Constraints stem from limitations or lack of progress in the technology required to support circular practices
MB7	Changes in Culture and Consumer Habits	Obstacles stem from the difficulty of changing consumer behavior and habits that do not support circular principles
MB8	Dependence on Conventional Business Models	Barriers arising from the inability or inadequacy in moving away from unsustainable traditional business models

Table 5. Strategies for circular economy practice in food system

	Strategies	Stakeholders	Frequency of Mention	Percentage of Total Mentions	Country	References
S1	Strategy SO (Strengths-Opportunities)	Government, Farmers, Food processing industry, Universities, Research institutions, Environmental organizations, Local government	7	5%	Netherlands	[3, 13, 44, 124-126]
S2	Strategy WO (Weaknesses-Opportunities)	Government, Farmers, Food processing industry, Universities, Research institutions, Environmental organizations, Local government	6	4.3%	Netherlands	[5, 8, 72, 127-129]
S3	Strategy SO (Strengths-Opportunities)	Farmers, Government, Universities, Research institutions, Environmental organizations, Local government	8	5.8%	Denmark	[99, 130-133]
S4	Strategy WO (Weaknesses-Opportunities)	Consumers, Government, Food processing industry, Environmental organizations, Universities, Research institutions, Local government	9	6.5%	Denmark	[57, 120, 134, 135]
S5	Strategy SO (Strengths-Opportunities)	Government, Farmers, Food processing industry, Universities, Research institutions, Environmental organizations, Local government	8	5.8%	Sweden	[2, 136, 137]
S6	Strategy WO (Weaknesses-Opportunities)	Government, Consumers, Food processing industry, Environmental organizations, Universities, Research institutions, Local government	6	4.3%	Sweden	[5, 8, 72, 129, 137, 138]
S7	Strategy SO (Strengths-Opportunities)	Government, Consumers, Food processing industry, Environmental organizations, Universities, Research institutions, Local government	5	3.6%	Singapore	[74, 139-141]
S8	Strategy WO (Weaknesses-Opportunities)	Government, Consumers, Food processing industry, Environmental organizations, Universities, Research institutions, Local government	7	5%	Singapore	[76, 142-144]
S9	Strategy SO (Strengths-Opportunities)	Government, Consumers, Food processing industry, Environmental organizations, Universities, Research institutions, Local government	7	5%	Thailand	[7, 8, 12, 145, 146]
S10	Strategy WO (Weaknesses-Opportunities)	Government, Consumers, Food processing industry, Environmental organizations, Universities, Research institutions, Local government	6	4.3%	Thailand	[8-12, 56]
S11	Strategy SO (Strengths-Opportunities)	Government, Consumers, Food processing industry, Environmental organizations, Universities, Research institutions, Local government	7	5%	Malaysia	[52, 147]
S12	Strategy WO (Weaknesses-Opportunities)	Consumers, Government, Food processing industry, Environmental organizations, Universities, Research institutions, Local government	8	5.8%	Malaysia	[11, 101, 148-150]
S13	Strategy SO (Strengths-Opportunities)	Farmers, Government, Food processing industry, Universities, Research institutions, Environmental organizations, Local government	7	5%	South Africa	[3, 44, 57, 114, 151, 152]
S14	Strategy WO (Weaknesses-Opportunities)	Government, Farmers, Food processing industry, Universities, Research institutions, Environmental organizations, Local government	6	4.3%	South Africa	[125, 126, 153, 154]
S15	Strategy SO (Strengths-Opportunities)	Farmers, Government, Food processing industry, Universities, Research institutions, Environmental organizations, Local government	7	5%	Kenya	[155-161]
S16	Strategy WO (Weaknesses-Opportunities)	Government, Farmers, Consumers, Food processing industry, Universities, Research institutions, Regional government	5	3.6%	Kenya	[52, 58, 103, 150, 162]
S17	Strategy SO (Strengths-Opportunities)	Government, Farmers, Food processing industry, Universities, Research institutions, Environmental organizations, Local government	8	5.8%	Nigeria	[125, 126, 153, 163]
S18	Strategy WO (Weaknesses-Opportunities)	Government, Consumers, Food processing industry, Environmental organizations, Universities, Research institutions, Local government	6	4.3%	Nigeria	[14, 40, 79, 94]
S19	Strategy SO (Strengths-Opportunities)	Government, Farmers, Food processing industry, Universities, Research institutions, Environmental organizations, Local government	7	5%	Ghana	[42, 53, 164]
S20	Strategy WO (Weaknesses-Opportunities)	Government, Farmers, Consumers, Food processing industry, Universities, Research institutions, Regional government	6	4.3%	Ghana	[20, 69, 119, 165, 166]

4.png

Figure 4. Pareto chart for main strategies of circular economy practice in food system

Table 6. Coding of main strategies

Coding	Definition
S1	Promotion of more sustainable consumption patterns and reduction of food waste.
S2	Implementation of a sustainable agricultural model with a focus on organic farming practices and increasing resource efficiency.
S3	Use of green technology in food production and organic farming practices.
S4	Public awareness campaign about the importance of sustainable food consumption and reducing food waste.
S5	Increased investment in sustainable agriculture and green technology to increase productivity and sustainability.
S6	Development of sustainable agricultural systems by utilizing advanced technology and organic farming practices.
S7	Use of green technology and innovation in waste processing to produce renewable energy.
S8	Initiatives to increase the efficiency of resource use in agriculture and food production.
S9	Increased investment in modern agricultural technology to increase production efficiency and reduce environmental impact.
S10	Implementation of sustainable agricultural practices, including organic farming and green fertilization, to increase soil fertility and reduce pesticide use.
S11	Promotion of organic farming practices and increased access to green technologies for farmers.
S12	Development of policies and regulations that support sustainable agricultural practices and the use of green technology.
S13	Food waste recycling initiatives and development of waste processing technology to produce alternative energy and fuel.
S14	Encourage community participation in food waste recycling programs and reuse of leftovers.
S15	Encourage technological innovation in the food supply chain to reduce waste and minimize food losses.
S16	Development of education and training programs for farmers on sustainable agricultural practices.
S17	Encourage community participation in food waste recycling programs and reuse of unused food ingredients.
S18	Initiative to strengthen local food supply chains and support local food producers.
S19	Development of vertical and hydroponic farming systems to increase plant productivity in urban environments.
S20	Strengthening infrastructure to facilitate food distribution from farmers to local and national markets.

3.2 SWOT analysis

Based on Table 5, it has been shown that several strategies related to the circular economy food system have been implemented and 20 types of strategies have been taken, which are processed with Pareto to display the main strategies as in Figure 4. The definitions of strategy 1 (S1) to strategy 20 (S20) are explained in Table 6.

To improve sustainability in agriculture and food production systems, various strategies have been proposed and supported by past research. S1, which focuses on promoting more sustainable consumption patterns and reducing food waste, is supported by research such as that conducted by Broccardo et al. [54], which shows that changes in consumer behavior can create economic incentives for producers to adopt greener practices. Nonetheless, Mehmood et al. [53] highlight the challenge of higher prices of sustainable products in developing countries, which may hinder the transition to such products.

S2 and S6 focus on the application of sustainable farming models and the use of advanced technologies and organic farming practices, supported by research from Lazarevic et al. [82], which show that the development of more efficient and environmentally friendly farming systems can reduce negative environmental impacts and improve resource efficiency. However, challenges related to costs and changes to existing systems may limit the widespread adoption of these models, as noted by Jonek-Kowalska et al. and Diéguez-Santana et al. [87, 93]. S3 and S7, which emphasize the use of green technologies in food production and waste processing to generate renewable energy, are supported by research from Huang et al. and Jagaba et al. [107, 167]. This research shows that green technologies can significantly reduce the environmental impact of food production and waste management. However, key challenges involve the need for large initial investments and supporting infrastructure, as highlighted by Rizos et al. [78] and Mehmood et al. [53]. S4 and S14, which focus on public awareness campaigns and community participation in food waste recycling, are supported by research from Neves and Marques [65] and Kalmykova et al. [103]. These studies emphasize the importance of raising public awareness and community engagement to achieve sustainability goals. However, challenges in reaching a wide audience and ensuring active participation may limit the effectiveness of these strategies, as noted by van Loon et al. [104] and Silva et al. [106].

S5 and S12, which include increasing investment in green technologies and developing policies that support sustainable agricultural practices, are supported by research from Corvellec et al. [98] and Philips [88]. This research shows that investments and supportive policies can improve sustainability and efficiency in agriculture. However, challenges related to the allocation of funds and consistent application of policies can hinder effective implementation, as highlighted by Thippo et al. [96] and D'amato et al. [101].

5.png

Figure 5. SWOT analysis: Strategies of circular economy practice in food system

3.2.1 Internal and external factors

The SWOT analysis identifies key internal and external factors affecting food security, categorized into strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The SWOT diagram of this research is shown in Figure 5 which explains that:

Strengths (Internal Factors):

Food Security: This indicates robust systems and processes ensuring consistent food availability and access. It suggests effective agricultural practices, reliable supply chains, and good resource management, contributing to stability and resilience in food supply.

Weaknesses (Internal Factors):

Implementation Costs: High costs related to the adoption of new technologies or processes can be a significant internal challenge. These costs include financial investments in infrastructure upgrades, training, and ongoing maintenance.
Infrastructure Limitations: Inadequate or outdated infrastructure can severely impact the efficiency of food supply chains. Weak infrastructure may lead to increased operational costs, delays, and reduced capacity to respond to demand fluctuations.

Opportunities (External Factors):

Policies and Regulations: Supportive policies and regulations offer opportunities for growth and enhancement. Government incentives, subsidies, and favorable regulatory environments can foster innovation and improve operational efficiency. Compliance with new regulations can also open new markets and enhance resilience.

Threats (External Factors):

Climate Change: Changes in climate pose significant risks by affecting agricultural productivity and disrupting supply chains. Extreme weather events and unpredictable climate patterns can threaten food production and distribution.
Food Price Instability: Volatile food prices create uncertainty for producers and consumers alike. Price fluctuations can be driven by various factors including market dynamics, economic conditions, and policy changes.
Scarcity of Natural Resources: Limited availability of critical resources like water, arable land, and energy can constrain production and increase competition. This scarcity can lead to higher costs and reduced production capacity.
Supply Chain Complexity: Increasing complexity in global supply chains can introduce vulnerabilities. Managing these complex networks requires advanced strategies and coordination to mitigate risks and ensure operational continuity.

3.2.2 SWOT strategy

SO (Strengths-Opportunities) strategy.

Leveraging Food Security with Favorable Policies and Regulations

Organizations can leverage their strong food security systems by aligning favorable policies and regulations to improve sustainable practices and market access. Strengthening food security through supportive policies can increase resilience to external shocks and market expansion. Research by Rubio-Andrés et al. [168], Vågsholm et al. [67] and Rodríguez-Espíndola et al. [120] emphasize the importance of strong supply chain management to leverage operational strengths in complex environments. Similarly, Krishnan et al. [135] highlight the role of policy in facilitating sustainable practices and improving knowledge transfer in food supply chains.

WO strategy (Weakness-Opportunity).

Overcoming Infrastructure Limitations with Policy Support and Technological Innovation

Organizations must strive to overcome infrastructure limitations by utilizing supportive policies and adopting new technologies. Investments in modern infrastructure and technological advances can reduce weaknesses and improve operational efficiency. Valdez et al. [169] show that implementing business continuity management and technology solutions can significantly reduce recovery times and increase resilience. Alareeni and Hamdan [76] also stated that technological innovation can support sustainable practices and reduce supply chain complexity.

ST (Strength-Threat) strategy.

Leveraging Food Security to Mitigate Climate Change and Resource Scarcity

Organizations can leverage their strengths in food security to develop strategies that mitigate the impacts of climate change and resource scarcity. By focusing on sustainable farming practices and efficient resource management, they can reduce vulnerability to external threats. The studies of Ruokamo et al. [170] and Sharma et al. [171] highlight the need for strategic management of supply chain complexity to counter environmental and resource-related threats. Implementing sustainable practices can increase resilience and long-term survival.

WT (Weakness-Threat) strategy.

Improving Infrastructure and Reducing Implementation Costs to Combat Climate Change and Price Volatility

To overcome internal weaknesses and external threats, organizations must focus on improving infrastructure and reducing implementation costs. This can be achieved through strategic investments and cost-effective technology solutions, which help reduce the adverse impacts of climate change and price volatility. Research by Yang et al. [21] and Rehman et al. [172] underscore the importance of strategic investments in infrastructure and business continuity planning to increase supply chain resilience and reduce vulnerability to disruption.

The SWOT analysis reveals several key strategies for implementing circular economy practices in Indonesia’s food system. One prominent strategy is the SO (Strengths-Opportunities) strategy, namely ‘Leveraging Food Security with Supportive Policies and Regulations’. This strategy focuses on leveraging the strengths and opportunities that exist in the food system to support the implementation of a circular economy.

Strengths in this context include Indonesia’s current policies that are oriented towards food self-sufficiency and national food security. Policy documents such as the National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN 2024-2025) and the Priority Program for Food Security and Agricultural Extension reflect the government’s commitment to improving food security through various policies and regulations. This SO strategy aims to leverage these policies by integrating circular economy principles into existing food policies, thereby promoting resource efficiency, waste reduction, and sustainability of the food system [23].

The strategic recommendations found in this study strongly support the achievement of Indonesia's Vision 2045 as a Sovereign, Advanced, and Sustainable Archipelago Nation. The strategies align with the realization of Mission 2: Economic Transformation and Mission 5: Social, Cultural, and Ecological Resilience, as outlined in policy document of Indonesia's National Long-Term Development Plan (RPJPN 2025-2045). The RPJPN 2025-2045 document is designed as a follow-up to the achievements of the National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN 2020-2024), which was developed by Indonesia's Ministry of National Development Planning.

However, implementing this strategy is not without challenges. Specific barriers identified in the SWOT analysis include limited waste management infrastructure and emerging technologies in circular economy practices. For example, efficient organic waste management and advanced recycling technologies have not been fully implemented in all regions, especially in rural and remote areas. In addition, lack of coordination between government agencies and relevant stakeholders can also hinder effective implementation.

Based on the results of a study conducted by Indonesia's Ministry of National Development Planning in 2021, the country's food system managed under a circular economy scenario is predicted to have a positive impact on the three dimensions of sustainable development (social, economic, and environmental) by 2030. The social dimension is indicated by the creation of 2.4 million net jobs, predominantly for women. The economic dimension is identified by a net economic increase of USD 26.3 billion and household savings of USD 177 per year. The environmental dimension is reflected in a 52% reduction in food loss and waste (FLW), a reduction of 59 million tons of CO2e emissions, and a saving of 4 billion cubic meters of water. However, to achieve these targets, Indonesia still faces several challenges, including difficulties in changing the culture and habits of businesses and consumers, as well as a lack of infrastructure, capital, and best practices [23].

Contextual factors that make this barrier particularly pronounced in Indonesia include uneven levels of infrastructure development, challenges in procuring appropriate technology, and differences in capacity and understanding across regions. In addition, barriers to adequate human resources and training to implement circular economy practices also contribute to these difficulties. To overcome these challenges, a holistic approach is needed that includes improving infrastructure, training, and strengthening coordination between agencies and stakeholders in order to create a more sustainable and circular economy-based food system.

4. Conclusions

The SLR analysis was conducted to identify various driving factors, barriers, and implementation strategies for a sustainable global food system using a circular economy approach. The resulting data was then analyzed using the Pareto analysis method to determine the ranking of the main drivers, key barriers, and primary strategies. The results of the Pareto analysis were then incorporated into the SWOT conceptual framework. The results of this SWOT analysis were used as recommendations to develop Indonesia's food system with a circular economy approach, similar to what has been developed at the global level. This SWOT analysis offers various key strategies recommended to overcome challenges and capitalize on opportunities in Indonesia. Overall, this SWOT strategy shows that by leveraging existing strengths, overcoming weaknesses, taking advantage of opportunities, and addressing threats, Indonesia can develop a more sustainable and resilient food system with a circular economy approach. The results of this study need to be followed by field research, involving confirmation and verification efforts through surveys, observations, or interviews regarding the recommended strategies. This is particularly important given that the existing conditions (social, economic, and environmental) in Indonesia may differ slightly from those at the global level.

Acknowledgment

Many thanks are expressed to the Directorate of Research, Technology and Community Service, Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia, who has funded this research under the Regular Fundamental Research scheme (Grant No.: 107/E5/PG.02.00.PL/2024).

References

[1] Hamam, M., Chinnici, G., Di Vita, G., Pappalardo, G., Pecorino, B., Maesano, G., D’Amico, M. (2021). Circular economy models in agro-food systems: A review. Sustainability, 13(6): 3453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063453

[2] El Bilali, H., Strassner, C., Ben Hassen, T. (2021). Sustainable agri-food systems: Environment, economy, society, and policy. Sustainability, 13(11): 6260. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116260

[3] Bajželj, B., Quested, T.E., Röös, E., Swannell, R.P.J. (2020). The role of reducing food waste for resilient food systems. Ecosystem Services, 45: 101140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101140

[4] Teoli, D., Sanvictores, T., An, J. (2019). SWOT Analysis. StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing.

[5] Saidani, M., Kim, H. (2022). Nexus between life cycle assessment, circularity, and sustainability indicators—Part I: A review. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 2: 1143-1156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00159-9

[6] Harris, S., Martin, M., Diener, D. (2021). Circularity for circularity’s sake? Scoping review of assessment methods for environmental performance in the circular economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26: 172-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.018

[7] Summary, E. (2019). Circular economy: This Laotian coffee factory can't find any waste! https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/bVc_FxDSp6lIRoG3j2lXJA.

[8] Dumée, L.F. (2022). Circular materials and circular design—Review on challenges towards sustainable manufacturing and recycling. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 2(1): 9-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00085-2

[9] Sumter, D., de Koning, J., Bakker, C., Balkenende, R. (2020). Circular economy competencies for design. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(4): 1561. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041561

[10] Geissdoerfer, M., Pieroni, M.P.P., Pigosso, D.C.A., Soufani, K. (2020). Circular business models: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277: 123741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123741

[11] Awan, U., Sroufe, R. (2022). Sustainability in the circular economy: Insights and dynamics of designing circular business models. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 12(3): 1521. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031521

[12] Kovacic, Z., Strand, R., Völker, T. (2019). The Circular Economy in Europe: Critical Perspectives on Policies and Imaginaries (Routledge Explorations in Sustainability and Governance). Routledge.

[13] Del Rio Osorio, L.L., Flórez-López, E., Grande-Tovar, C.D. (2021). The potential of selected agri-food loss and waste to contribute to a circular economy: Applications in the food, cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries. Molecules, 26(2): 515. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26020515

[14] Meléndez-Martínez, A.J., Böhm, V., Borge, G.I.A., et al. (2021). Carotenoids: Considerations for their use in functional foods, nutraceuticals, nutricosmetics, supplements, botanicals, and novel foods in the context of sustainability, circular economy, and climate change. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 12: 433-460. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-062220-013218

[15] Lehtokunnas, T., Mattila, M., Närvänen, E., Mesiranta, N. (2022). Towards a circular economy in food consumption: Food waste reduction practices as ethical work. Journal of Consumer Culture, 22(1): 227-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540520926252

[16] Faustino, M., Veiga, M., Sousa, P., Costa, E.M., Silva, S., Pintado, M. (2019). Agro-food byproducts as a new source of natural food additives. Molecules, 24(6): 1056. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24061056

[17] Ciccullo, F., Cagliano, R., Bartezzaghi, G., Perego, A. (2021). Implementing the circular economy paradigm in the agri-food supply chain: The role of food waste prevention technologies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164: 105114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105114

[18] Kazancoglu, Y., Ekinci, E., Mangla, S.K., Sezer, M.D., Kayikci, Y. (2021). Performance evaluation of reverse logistics in food supply chains in a circular economy using system dynamics. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1): 71-91. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2610

[19] Cedrez, C.B., Andeweg, K., Casu, F.A.M. (2023). Circular food systems around the world: Exploring concepts, ideas and opportunities. Wageningen Livestock Research. https://doi.org/10.18174/638397

[20] Fortunati, S., Morea, D., Mosconi, E.M. (2020). Circular economy and corporate social responsibility in the agricultural system: Cases study of the Italian agri-food industry. Agricultural Economics (Czech Republic), 66(11): 489-498. https://doi.org/10.17221/343/2020-AGRICECON

[21] Yang, M., Chen, L., Wang, J.J., Msigwa, G., Osman, A.I., Fawzy, S., Rooney, D.W., Yap, P.S. (2023). Circular economy strategies for combating climate change and other environmental issues. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 21(1): 55-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01499-6

[22] Yadav, H., Soni, U., Kumar, G. (2023). Analysing challenges to smart waste management for a sustainable circular economy in developing countries: A fuzzy DEMATEL study. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 12(2): 361-384. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-10-2021-0127

[23] Bappenas. (2021). The economic, social and environmental benefits of a circular economy in indonesia. Ministry of National Planning and Development Indonesia. https://lcdi-indonesia.id/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Full-Report-The-Economic-Social-and-Environmental-Benefits-of-a-Circular-Economy-in-Indonesia.pdf.

[24] Siddaway, A.P., Wood, A.M., Hedges, L.V. (2024). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70: 747-770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418

[25] Lame, G. (2019). Systematic literature reviews: An introduction. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED), pp. 1633-1642. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.169

[26] Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ Publishing Group, 372: 71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

[27] Yusof, S.M., Aspinwall, E. (2000). TQM implementation issues: Review and case study. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 20(6): 634-655. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570010321595

[28] Rashid, M.R., Ghosh, S.K., Bin Alam, M.F., Rahman, M.F. (2024). A fuzzy multi-criteria model with Pareto analysis for prioritizing sustainable supply chain barriers in the textile industry: Evidence from an emerging economy. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 5: 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2023.11.002

[29] Spasojević-Brkić, V., Perišić, M., Veljković, Z., Misita, M., Damjanović, M. (2022). Pareto analysis in bulldozer’s failures and stoppages risk management. Industrija, 50(2): 37-49. https://doi.org/10.5937/industrija50-41907

[30] Erdil, A. (2019). An evaluation on lifecycle of products in textile industry of turkey through quality function deployment and pareto analysis. Procedia Computer Science, 151: 735-744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.109

[31] Wuni, I.Y. (2022). Mapping the barriers to circular economy adoption in the construction industry: A systematic review, Pareto analysis, and mitigation strategy map. Building and Environment, 223: 109453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109453

[32] Sahani, N. (2021). Application of hybrid SWOT-AHP-FuzzyAHP model for formulation and prioritization of ecotourism strategies in Western Himalaya, India. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 9(3): 349-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2021.08.001

[33] Pereira, L., Pinto, M., da Costa, R.L., Dias, Á., Gonçalves, R. (2021). The new SWOT for a sustainable world. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1): 1-31. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010018

[34] Indriyani, A., Saputa, D., Adriani, D. (2023). Sustainable strategies for civet coffee production: A SWOT-AHP analysis. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 19(3): 532-540. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.19.3.1856

[35] Oliveira, R.C., Nääs, I. de A., Garcia, S. (2023). Combining SWOT with AHP for analyzing the adoption of a circular economy in the apparel industry in Brazil. Recycling, 8(5): 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling8050073

[36] Cravero, R.A., Capobianco-Uriarte, M.M., Casado-Belmonte, M.P. (2021). Rethinking the physical losses definition in agri-food chains from eco-efficiency to circular economy. In Challenges and Opportunities of Circular Economy in Agri-Food Sector: Rethinking Waste, pp. 93-117. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3791-9_6

[37] Durán-Romero, G., López, A.M., Beliaeva, T., Ferasso, M., Garonne, C., Jones, P. (2020). Bridging the gap between circular economy and climate change mitigation policies through eco-innovations and Quintuple Helix Model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160: 120246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120246

[38] Avraamidou, S., Baratsas, S.G., Tian, Y., Pistikopoulos, E.N. (2020). Circular economy-A challenge and an opportunity for process systems engineering. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 133: 106629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2020.106629

[39] Klein, O., Nier, S., Tamásy, C. (2022). Circular agri-food economies: Business models and practices in the potato industry. Sustainability Science, 17(6): 2237-2252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01106-1

[40] Lavelli, V. (2021). Circular food supply chains—Impact on value addition and safety. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 114: 323-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.06.008

[41] Calzolari, T., Genovese, A., Brint, A. (2022). Circular Economy indicators for supply chains: A systematic literature review. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 13: 100160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2021.100160

[42] Sharma, Y.K., Mangla, S.K., Patil, P.P., Liu, S. (2019). When challenges impede the process: For circular economy-driven sustainability practices in food supply chain. Management Decision, 57(4): 995-1017. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2018-1056

[43] Coghlan, C., Proulx, P., Salazar, K. (2022). A food-circular economy-women nexus: Lessons from guelph-wellington. Sustainability, 14: 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010192

[44] Camilleri, M.A. (2021). Sustainable production and consumption of food: Mise-en-place circular economy policies and waste management practices in tourism cities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(17): 7986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179986

[45] Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., Rasoulinezhad, E., Yoshino, N. (2019). Energy and food security: Linkages through price volatility. Energy Policy, 128: 796-806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.043

[46] Chamorro, F., Carpena, M., Fraga-Corral, M. (2022). Valorization of kiwi agricultural waste and industry by-products by recovering bioactive compounds and applications as food additives: A circular economy model. Food Chemistry, 370: 131315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.131315

[47] Bianchi, M., Cordella, M. (2023). Does circular economy mitigate the extraction of natural resources? Empirical evidence based on analysis of 28 European economies over the past decade. Ecological Economics, 203: 107607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107607

[48] Bregenzer, A., Jimenez, P. (2021). Risk factors and leadership in a digitalized working world and their effects on employees’ stress and resources: Web-based questionnaire study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(3): e24906. http://doi.org/10.2196/24906

[49] Norton, G.W., Alwang, J., Masters, W.A. (2021). Economics of Agricultural Development: World Food Systems and Resource Use. Routledge.

[50] Muscio, A., Sisto, R. (2020). Are agri-food systems really switching to a circular economy model? Implications for European research and innovation policy. Sustainability, 12(14): 5554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145554

[51] Zhang, Q., Dhir, A., Kaur, P. (2022). Circular economy and the food sector: A systematic literature review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 32: 655-668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.07.023

[52] Selvan, T., Panmei, L., Murasing, K.K., et al. (2023). Circular economy in agriculture: Unleashing the potential of integrated organic farming for food security and sustainable development. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7: 1170380. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1170380

[53] Mehmood, A., Ahmed, S., Viza, E., Bogush, A., Ayyub, R.M. (2021). Drivers and barriers towards circular economy in agri‐food supply chain: A review. Business Strategy & Development, 4(4): 465-481. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.171

[54] Broccardo, L., Truant, E., Zicari, A. (2019). Internal corporate sustainability drivers: What evidence from family firms? A literature review and research agenda. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(1): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1672

[55] Tan, J., Tan, F.J., Ramakrishna, S. (2022). Transitioning to a circular economy: A systematic review of its drivers and barriers. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(3): 1757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031757

[56] Rajković, M., Popović-Minić, D., Milinčić, D., Zdravković, M. (2020). Circular economy in food industry. Zaštita Materijala, 61(3): 229-250. https://doi.org/10.5937/zasmat2003229r6

[57] Wang, Y., Yuan, Z., Tang, Y. (2021). Enhancing food security and environmental sustainability: A critical review of food loss and waste management. Resources, Environment and Sustainability, 4: 100023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2021.100023

[58] Klingbeil, R., Byiringiro, F. (2013). Food security, water security, improved food value chains for a more sustainable socio-economic development. International Affairs (CIDOB), Qatar University, Doha, Qatar. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2616.1443

[59] Gallego-Schmid, A., Chen, H.-M., Sharmina, M., Mendoza, J.M.F. (2020). Links between circular economy and climate change mitigation in the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260: 121115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.121115

[60] Rehan, R., Nehdi, M. (2005). Carbon dioxide emissions and climate change: Policy implications for the cement industry. Environmental Science & Policy, 8(2): 105-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.12.006

[61] Lehotský, L., Černoch, F., Osička, J., Ocelík, P. (2019). When climate change is missing: Media discourse on coal mining in the Czech Republic. Energy Policy, 129: 774-786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.065

[62] Azimli, A. (2023). The impact of climate policy uncertainty on firm value: Does corporate social responsibility engagement matter? Financial Research Letters, 51: 103456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103456

[63] Maja, M.M., Ayano, S.F. (2021). The impact of population growth on natural resources and farmers' capacity to adapt to climate change in low-income countries. Earth Systems and Environment, 5(2): 271-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41748-021-00209-6

[64] Doni, F., Johannsdottir, L. (2020). Environmental social and governance (ESG) ratings. In Climate Action, pp. 435-449.

[65] Neves, S.A., Marques, A.C. (2022). Drivers and barriers in the transition from a linear economy to a circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 341: 130865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130865

[66] Hina, M., Chauhan, C., Kaur, P., Kraus, S., Dhir, A. (2022). Drivers and barriers of circular economy business models: Where we are now, and where we are heading. Journal of Cleaner Production, 333: 130049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130049

[67] Vågsholm, I., Arzoomand, N.S., Boqvist, S. (2020). Food security, safety, and sustainability—getting the trade-offs right. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4: 16. http://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00016

[68] Martin-Shields, C.P., Stojetz, W. (2019). Food security and conflict: Empirical challenges and future opportunities for research and policy making on food security and conflict. World Development, 119: 150-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.07.011

[69] Boon, E.K., Anuga, S.W. (2020). Circular economy and its relevance for improving food and nutrition security in Sub-Saharan Africa: The case of Ghana. Materials Circular Economy, 2: 1-14.

[70] Pawlak, K., Kołodziejczak, M. (2020). The role of agriculture in ensuring food security in developing countries: Considerations in the context of the problem of sustainable food production. Sustainability, 12(13): 5488. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135488

[71] Ahmad, A., Hassan, S.W., Banat, F. (2022). An overview of microalgae biomass as a sustainable aquaculture feed ingredient: Food security and circular economy. Bioengineered, 13(4): 9521-9547. https://doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2022.2061148

[72] Van Zanten, H.H.E., Van Ittersum, M.K., De Boer, I.J.M. (2019). The role of farm animals in a circular food system. Global Food Security, 21: 18-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.06.003

[73] Barros, M.V., Salvador, R., do Prado, G.F., de Francisco, A.C., Piekarski, C.M. (2021). Circular economy as a driver to sustainable businesses. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2: 100006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2020.100006

[74] Barros, M.V., Salvador, R., de Francisco, A.C., Piekarski, C.M. (2020). Mapping of research lines on circular economy practices in agriculture: From waste to energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 131: 109958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109958

[75] Kong, D., Yang, Y., Wang, Q. (2023). Innovative efficiency and firm value: Evidence from China. Financial Research Letters, 52: 103557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103557

[76] Alareeni, B.A., Hamdan, A. (2020). ESG impact on performance of US S&P 500-listed firms. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 20(7): 1409-1428. http://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2020-0258

[77] Huang, J., Mak, F.-Y., Wong, Y.-Y., Ko, S., Chong, M.K.C., Wang, Z., Hon, K.-L., Wong, E.L.Y., Yeoh, E.-K., Wong, M.C.S. (2022). Enabling factors, barriers, and perceptions of pneumococcal vaccination strategy implementation: A qualitative study. Vaccines (Basel), 10(7): 1164. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10071164

[78] Rizos, V., Bryhn, J. (2022). Implementation of circular economy approaches in the electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) sector: Barriers, enablers, and policy insights. Journal of Cleaner Production, 338: 130617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130617

[79] Ada, N., Kazancoglu, Y., Sezer, M.D., Ede-Senturk, C., Ozer, I., Ram, M. (2021). Analyzing barriers of circular food supply chains and proposing industry 4.0 solutions. Sustainability, 13(6): 6812. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126812

[80] Lorenzo, D., Núñez-Cacho, P., Akhter, N., Chirico, F. (2022). Why are some family firms not innovative?: Innovation barriers and path dependence in family firms. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 38(1): 101182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2021.101182

[81] Takacs, F., Brunner, D., Frankenberger, K. (2022). Barriers to a circular economy in small- and medium-sized enterprises and their integration in a sustainable strategic management framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 362: 132227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132227

[82] Lazarevic, D., Salo, H., Kautto, P. (2022). Circular economy policies and their transformative outcomes: The transformative intent of Finland’s strategic policy programme. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379(2): 134892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134892

[83] Abbasi, F.H., Shaikh, A.A., Mehraj, J. (2022). Vaccine hesitancy and perceptions of the community about polio in high-risk areas of Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan. Vaccines (Basel), 11(1): 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11010070

[84] Kowalski, Z., Makara, A. (2021). The circular economy model used in the Polish agro-food consortium: A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 284: 124751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124751

[85] Hartley, K., van Santen, R., Kirchherr, J. (2020). Policies for transitioning towards a circular economy: Expectations from the European Union (EU). Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 155: 104634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104634

[86] Gamayuni, R.R. (2015). The effect of intangible asset, financial performance, and financial policies on the firm value. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 4(1): 202-212.

[87] Jonek-Kowalska, I., Wolniak, R., Marinina, O.A., Ponomarenko, T.V. (2022). Stakeholders, Sustainable Development Policies and the Coal Mining Industry: Perspectives from Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Routledge.

[88] Circular economy and the medical consumables. https://app.croneri.co.uk/feature-articles/circular-economy-and-chemical-industry?fbclid=IwAR3tB1HNLVwqBhPj8oiwnqSqsUV7QTGvO9NwagNIdpyMyli9-DBoJAGUfDU, accessed on Jun. 25, 2024.

[89] Rosenboom, J.G., Langer, R., Traverso, G. (2022). Bioplastics for a circular economy. Nature Reviews Materials, 7(2): 117-137. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00407-8

[90] Lakatos, E.S., Yong, G., Szilagyi, A., Clinci, D.S., Georgescu, L., Iticescu, C., Cioca, L.-I. (2021). Conceptualizing core aspects on circular economy in cities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(14): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147549

[91] Jacobs, C., Soulliere, K., Sawyer-Beaulieu, S., Sabzwari, A., Tam, E. (2022). Challenges to the circular economy: Recovering wastes from simple versus complex products. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(5): 2576. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052576

[92] Castro, C.G., Trevisan, A.H., Pigosso, D.C.A., Mascarenhas, J. (2022). The rebound effect of circular economy: Definitions, mechanisms, and a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 345: 131136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131136

[93] Diéguez-Santana, K., Sarduy-Pereira, L.B., Sablón-Cossío, N., Bautista-Santos, H., Sánchez-Galván, F., Ruíz Cedeño, S.D.M. (2022). Evaluation of the circular economy in a pitahaya agri-food chain. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(5): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052950

[94] Bimpizas-Pinis, M., Santagata, R., Kaiser, S., Liu, Y., Lyu, Y. (2022). Additives in the food supply chain: Environmental assessment and circular economy implications. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 14: 100172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2022.100172

[95] Zhang, Z., Qiao, Y., Liu, H., Zhang, Z., Li, M. (2022). Ergonomic analysis of a low-cost fresh market apple harvest-assist unit. In Mechanical Harvest of Fresh Market Apples: Progress over the Past Decades, pp. 55-69.

[96] Thippo, W., Jaturanonda, C., Yaovasuwanchai, S., Khompatraporn, C., Wuttipornpun, T., Meksawan, K. (2024). Multi-objective job rotation in rice seed harvesting with equitable injury risk and cost allocation. International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science (IJKSS), 15(1): 1-28. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJKSS.334124

[97] Sousa, P.M., Moreira, M.J., de Moura, A.P., Lima, R.C., Cunha, L.M. (2021). Consumer perception of the circular economy concept applied to the food domain: An exploratory approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(20): 11340. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011340

[98] Corvellec, H., Stowell, A.F., Johansson, N. (2022). Critiques of the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26(2): 421-432. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13187

[99] Morseletto, P. (2020). Targets for a circular economy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 153: 104553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104553

[100] Reslan, M., Last, N., Mathur, N., Morris, K.C., Ferrero, V. (2022). Circular economy: A product life cycle perspective on engineering and manufacturing practices. Procedia CIRP, 105: 851-858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.141

[101] D'Amato, D., Korhonen, J. (2021). Integrating the green economy, circular economy, and bioeconomy in a strategic sustainability framework. Ecological Economics, 188: 107143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107143

[102] Mejame, M.P.P., King, D., Banhalmi-Zakar, Z., He, Y. (2022). Circular economy: A sustainable management strategy for rare earth elements consumption in Australia. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 4: 100157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2022.100157

[103] Kalmykova, Y., Sadagopan, M., Rosado, L. (2018). Circular economy - From review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135: 190-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.034

[104] van Loon, P., Diener, D., Harris, S. (2021). Circular products and business models and environmental impact reductions: Current knowledge and knowledge gaps. Journal of Cleaner Production, 288: 125627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125627

[105] Palafox-Alcantar, P.G., Khosla, R., McElroy, C., Miranda, N. (2022). Circular economy for cooling: A review to develop a systemic framework for production networks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379(1): 134738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134738

[106] Silva, N., Pålsson, H. (2022). Industrial packaging and its impact on sustainability and circular economy: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 333: 130165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130165

[107] Jagaba, A.H., Kutty, Mohamed, S.R., Lawal, I.M., Birniwa, A.H., Affam, A.C., Yaro, N.S.A., Usman, A.K., Umaru, I., Abubakar, S., Noor, A., Soja, U.B., Yakubu, A.S. (2022). Circular economy potential and contributions of petroleum industry sludge utilization to environmental sustainability through engineered processes - A review. Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy, 3: 100029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcb.2022.100029

[108] Knäble, D., de Quevedo Puente, E., Pérez-Cornejo, C., Baumgärtler, T. (2022). The impact of the circular economy on sustainable development: A European panel data approach. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 34: 233-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.09.016

[109] Antunes, J.C.C., Eugénio, T., Branco, M.C. (2022). Circular economy for cities and sustainable development: The case of the portuguese city of Leiria. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(3): 1726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031726

[110] Viles, E., Kalemkerian, F., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Antony, J., Santos, J. (2022). Theorizing the principles of sustainable production in the context of circular economy and industry 4.0. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 33: 1043-1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.08.024

[111] Opferkuch, K., Caeiro, S., Salomone, R., Ramos, T.B. (2022). Circular economy disclosure in corporate sustainability reports: The case of European companies in sustainability rankings. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 32: 436-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.05.003

[112] Närvänen, E., Mattila, M., Mesiranta, N. (2021). Institutional work in food waste reduction: Start-ups’ role in moving towards a circular economy. Industrial Marketing Management, 93: 605-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.08.009

[113] Domenech, T., Bahn-Walkowiak, B. (2019). Transition towards a resource-efficient circular economy in Europe: Policy lessons from the EU and the member states. Ecological Economics, 155: 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.001

[114] Coderoni, S., Perito, M.A. (2020). Sustainable consumption in the circular economy: An analysis of consumers' purchase intentions for waste-to-value food. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252: 119870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119870

[115] Matthews, F., Moran, C., Jaiswal, A.K. (2021). A review on European Union’s strategy for plastics in a circular economy and its impact on food safety. Journal of Cleaner Production, 283: 125263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125263

[116] Rodríguez-González, R.M., Maldonado-Guzmán, G., Madrid-Guijarro, A., Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2022). Does circular economy affect financial performance? The mediating role of sustainable supply chain management in the automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379: 134670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134670

[117] Sharma, A., Foropon, C. (2019). Green product attributes and green purchase behavior: A theory of planned behavior perspective with implications for circular economy. Management Decision, 57(4): 1018-1042. http://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2018-1092

[118] de Castro, L.A., Lizi, J.M., das Chagas, E.G.L., de Carvalho, R.A., Vanin, F.M. (2020). From orange juice by-product in the food industry to a functional ingredient: Application in the circular economy. Foods, 9(5): 593. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9050593

[119] Santagata, R., Ripa, M., Genovese, A., Ulgiati, S. (2021). Food waste recovery pathways: Challenges and opportunities for an emerging bio-based circular economy. A systematic review and an assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286: 125490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125490

[120] Rodríguez-Espíndola, O., Cuevas-Romo, A., Chowdhury, S., Díaz-Acevedo, N., Albores, P., Despoudi, S., Malesios, C., Dey, P. (2022). The role of circular economy principles and sustainable-oriented innovation to enhance social, economic, and environmental performance: Evidence from Mexican SMEs. International Journal of Production Economics, 248: 108495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108495

[121] De Corato, U. (2020). Agricultural waste recycling in horticultural intensive farming systems by on-farm composting and compost-based tea application improves soil quality and plant health: A review under the perspective of a circular economy. Science of the Total Environment, 738: 139840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139840

[122] Sehnem, S., Pandolfi, A., Gomes, C. (2020). Is sustainability a driver of the circular economy? Social Responsibility Journal, 16(3): 329-347. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-06-2018-0146

[123] Bayulgen, O. (2020). Localizing the energy transition: Town-level political and socio-economic drivers of clean energy in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 62: 101376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101376

[124] de Los Mozos, E.A., Badurdeen, F., Dossou, P.-E. (2020). Sustainable consumption by reducing food waste: A review of the current state and directions for future research. Procedia Manufacturing, 51: 1791-1798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.10.249

[125] Narasimmalu, A., Ramasamy, R. (2020). Food processing industry waste and circular economy. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 955(1): 012089. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/955/1/012089

[126] Teigiserova, D.A., Hamelin, L., Thomsen, M. (2020). Towards transparent valorization of food surplus, waste and loss: Clarifying definitions, food waste hierarchy, and role in the circular economy. Science of the Total Environment, 706: 136033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136033

[127] Yang, T.-K., Yan, M.-R. (2020). The corporate shared value for sustainable development: An ecosystem perspective. Sustainability, 12(6): 2348. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062348

[128] Oudah, M., Jabeen, F., Dixon, C. (2018). Determinants linked to family business sustainability in the UAE: An AHP approach. Sustainability, 10(1): 246. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010246

[129] Gumasing, M.J.J., Rendon, E.R.A., German, J.D. (2023). Sustainable ergonomic workplace: Fostering job satisfaction and productivity among business process outsourcing (BPO) workers. Sustainability, 15(18): 13516. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813516

[130] Yousaf, Z. (2021). Go for green: Green innovation through green dynamic capabilities: Accessing the mediating role of green practices and green value co-creation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(39): 54863-54875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14343-1

[131] Demirel, P., Li, Q.C., Rentocchini, F., Tamvada, J.P. (2019). Born to be green: New insights into the economics and management of green entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 52: 759-771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9933-z

[132] Liu, D., Yu, X., Huang, M., Yang, S., Isa, S.M., Hu, M. (2022). The effects of green intellectual capital on green innovation: A green supply chain integration perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 13: 830716. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2022.830716

[133] Côté, R.P., Liu, C. (2016). Strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at an industrial park level: A case study of Debert Air Industrial Park, Nova Scotia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114: 352-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.061

[134] Gil-Lamata, M., Latorre-Martínez, M.P. (2022). The circular economy and sustainability: A systematic literature review. Cuadernos de Gestión, 22(1): 129-142. https://doi.org/10.5295/CDG.211492MG

[135] Krishnan, R., Agarwal, R., Bajada, C., Arshinder, K. (2020). Redesigning a food supply chain for environmental sustainability: An analysis of resource use and recovery. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242: 118374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118374

[136] Denicolai, S., Zucchella, A., Magnani, G. (2021). Internationalization, digitalization, and sustainability: Are SMEs ready? A survey on synergies and substituting effects among growth paths. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166: 120650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120650

[137] Velenturf, A.P.M., Purnell, P. (2021). Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27: 1437-1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.018

[138] Wongkaew, M., Chaimongkol, P., Leksawasdi, N., et al. (2021). Mango peel pectin: Recovery, functionality and sustainable uses. Polymers, 13(22): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13223898

[139] Hunt, S.D., Madhavaram, S. (2020). Adaptive marketing capabilities, dynamic capabilities, and renewal competences: The ‘outside vs. inside’ and ‘static vs. dynamic’ controversies in strategy. Industrial Marketing Management, 89: 129-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.07.004

[140] Khan, S.A.R., Zhang, Y., Kumar, A., Zavadskas, E., Streimikiene, D. (2020). Measuring the impact of renewable energy, public health expenditure, logistics, and environmental performance on sustainable economic growth. Sustainable Development, 28(4): 833-843. http://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2034

[141] Song, J., Wang, Y., Zhang, S., Song, Y., Xue, S., Liu, L., Lvy, X., Wang, X., Yang, G. (2021). Coupling biochar with anaerobic digestion in a circular economy perspective: A promising way to promote sustainable energy, environment and agriculture development in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 144: 110973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110973

[142] Warr, P. (2023). Productivity in Indonesian agriculture: Impacts of domestic and international research. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(3): 835-856. http://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12533

[143] Velasco-Muñoz, J.F., Mendoza, J.M.F., Aznar-Sánchez, J.A., Gallego-Schmid, A. (2021). Circular economy implementation in the agricultural sector: Definition, strategies and indicators. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 170: 105618. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105618

[144] Diakosavvas, D., Frezal, C. (2019). Bio-Economy and the Sustainability of the Agriculture and Food System: Opportunities and Policy Challenges. OECD Publishing, Paris.

[145] Sherwood, J. (2020). The significance of biomass in a circular economy. Bioresource Technology, 300: 122755. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122755

[146] Kinnunen, P., Karhu, M., Yli-Rantala, E., Kivikytö-Reponen, P., Mäkinen, J. (2022). A review of circular economy strategies for mine tailings. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 8: 100499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100499

[147] Fogarassy, C., Nagy-Pércsi, K., Ajibade, S., Gyuricza, C., Ymeri, P. (2020). Relations between circular economic ‘principles’ and organic food purchasing behavior in Hungary. Agronomy, 10(5): 616. http://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10050616

[148] Morais, T.G., Teixeira, R,F.M., Lauk, C., et al. (2021). Agroecological measures and circular economy strategies to ensure sufficient nitrogen for sustainable farming. Global Environmental Change, 69: 102313. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102313

[149] Ciliberto, C., Szopik-Depczyńska, K., Tarczyńska-Łuniewska, M., Ruggieri, A., Ioppolo, G. (2021). Enabling the Circular Economy transition: A sustainable lean manufacturing recipe for Industry 4.0. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(7): 3255-3272. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2801

[150] Khajuria, A., Atienza, V., Chavanich, S., et al. (2022). Accelerating circular economy solutions to achieve the 2030 agenda for sustainable development goals. Circular Economy, 1(1): 100001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cec.2022.100001

[151] Soma, T., Li, B., Maclaren, V. (2020). Food waste reduction: A test of three consumer awareness interventions. Sustainability, 12(3): 907. http://doi.org/10.3390/su12030907

[152] Zamri, G.B., Azizal, N.K.A., Nakamura, S., et al. (2020). Delivery, impact and approach of household food waste reduction campaigns. Journal of Cleaner Production, 246: 118969. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118969

[153] Kim, J., Rundle-Thiele, S., Knox, K., Burke, K., Bogomolova, S. (2020). Consumer perspectives on household food waste reduction campaigns. Journal of Cleaner Production, 243: 118608. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118608

[154] Ojha, S., Bußler, S., Schlüter, O.K. (2020). Food waste valorisation and circular economy concepts in insect production and processing. Waste Management, 118: 600-609. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.09.010

[155] Xie, X., Huo, J., Zou, H. (2019). Green process innovation, green product innovation, and corporate financial performance: A content analysis method. Journal of Business Research, 101: 697-706. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.010

[156] Tang, M., Walsh, G., Lerner, D., Fitza, M.A., Li, Q. (2018). Green innovation, managerial concern, and firm performance: An empirical study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(1): 39-51. http://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1981

[157] Dangelico, R.M., Pujari, D. (2010). Mainstreaming green product innovation: Why and how companies integrate environmental sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 95: 471-486. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0434-0

[158] Guo, Y., Wang, L., Chen, Y. (2020). Green entrepreneurial orientation and green innovation: The mediating effect of supply chain learning. SAGE Open, 10(1): 2158244019898798. http://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019898798

[159] Wang, C., Zhang, X., Teng, X. (2023). How to convert green entrepreneurial orientation into green innovation: The role of knowledge creation process and green absorptive capacity. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(4): 1260-1273. http://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3187

[160] Shehzad, M.U., Zhang, J., Latif, K.F., Jamil, K., Waseel, A.H. (2023). Do green entrepreneurial orientation and green knowledge management matter in the pursuit of ambidextrous green innovation: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 388: 135971. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135971

[161] Potting, J., Hekkert, M., Worrell, E., Hanemaaijer, A. (2017). Circular economy: Measuring innovation in the product chain. Policy Report. https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/circular-economy-measuring-innovation-in-product-chains.

[162] Senadheera, S.S., Gregory, R., Rinklebe, J., Farrukh, M., Rhee, J.H., Ok, Y.S. (2022). The development of research on environmental, social, and governance (ESG): A bibliometric analysis. Sustainable Environment, 8(1): 2125869. http://doi.org/10.1080/27658511.2022.2125869

[163] Sari, Y., Wibisono, E., Pangkiey, I. (2019). An empirical study of how the deployment of lean sigma can reduce its enemies: Waste, overburden and defect. In Proceeding of International Conference on Informatics, Technology and Engineering, University of Surabaya.

[164] Kleber, R., Reimann, M., Souza, G.C., Zhang, W. (2020). Two-sided competition with vertical differentiation in both acquisition and sales in remanufacturing. European Journal of Operational Research, 284(2): 572-587. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.01.012

[165] Treiblmaier, H., Garaus, M. (2023). Using blockchain to signal quality in the food supply chain: The impact on consumer purchase intentions and the moderating effect of brand familiarity. International Journal of Information Management, 68: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102514

[166] Kaur, B., Mansi, Dimri, S., et al. (2023). Insights into the harvesting tools and equipment’s for horticultural crops: From then to now. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 14(3): 100814. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100814

[167] Huang, D.Z.X. (2021). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) activity and firm performance: A review and consolidation. Accounting & Finance, 61(1): 335-360. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12569

[168] Rubio-Andrés, M., Ramos-González, M.M., Sastre-Castillo, M.Á. (2022). Driving innovation management to create shared value and sustainable growth. Review of Managerial Science, 16(7): 2181-2211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00520-0

[169] Valdez-Juárez, L.E., Castillo-Vergara, M. (2021). Technological capabilities, open innovation, and eco-innovation: Dynamic capabilities to increase corporate performance of SMEs. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1): 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010008

[170] Ruokamo, E., Savolainen, H., Seppälä, J., Sironen, S., Räisänen, M., Auvinen, A.P. (2023). Exploring the potential of circular economy to mitigate pressures on biodiversity. Global Environmental Change, 78: 102625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102625

[171] Sharma, V.M., Klein, A. (2020). Consumer perceived value, involvement, trust, susceptibility to interpersonal influence, and intention to participate in online group buying. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52: 101946. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101946

[172] Rehman, A., Ma, H., Ahmad, M., Irfan, M., Traore, O., Chandio, A.A. (2021). Towards environmental sustainability: Devolving the influence of carbon dioxide emission to population growth, climate change, forestry, livestock, and crops production in Pakistan. Ecological Indicators, 125: 107460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107460

IJHT
MMEP
ACSM
EJEE
ISI
I2M
JESA
RCMA
RIA
TS
IJSDP
IJSSE
IJDNE
JNMES
IJES
EESRJ
RCES
AMA_A
AMA_B
AMA_C
AMA_D
MMC_A
MMC_B
MMC_C
MMC_D

Username
Password
Remember me

Search form