Circular Economy Concepts Still Trapped in Specialized Journals, Study Finds
A new analysis reveals that circular economy research remains siloed in a narrow set of publications rather than spreading across business and policy disciplines. The findings suggest that despite growing corporate sustainability commitments, the knowledge needed to implement circular models isn't reaching mainstream business, finance, and policy audiences where decisions are made.
Originaltitel: Diffusion and Integration of Circular Economy into Mainstream Disciplinary Discourse
Abstract Purpose This study aims to assess the diffusion and integration of Circular Economy (CE) knowledge across academic disciplines, by examining how CE concepts spread within mainstream academic and disciplinary discourses. Design/Methodology/Approach CE is conceptualized as a knowledge object, distinguishing between mainstream academic discourse (MAD) and mainstream disciplinary discourse (MDD). The research combines a dataset of CE-related articles from OpenAlex with Scimago’s indexed journals list, employing bibliometric mapping and topic analysis to chart the spread of CE knowledge. Integration is evaluated using a qualitative analysis of selected disciplinary articles, applying a four-stage typology: rhetorical uptake, instrumental uptake, selective translation, and conceptual integration. Findings Results indicate that the MAD of CE is largely interdisciplinary and concentrated, with 20 journals accounting for nearly half of the 8,582 CE articles. CE first appeared in MDD in 2008 within Medicine, reaching all academic fields by 2024. Certain MDDs predominantly publish CE-related papers in interdisciplinary journals. Nineteen topic clusters were identified and mapped across 23 academic areas. The exploratory analysis reveals that disciplines primarily engage with CE in rhetorical or instrumental terms, utilizing it as a managerial tool or symbolic reference. There are limited instances of selective translation and no evidence of full conceptual integration. Research Limitations The study is based on bibliographic metadata, with conclusions restricted to articles within MAD and MDD and to the exploratory disciplinary sample analyzed qualitatively. Practical Implications The findings provide new perspectives on the challenges disruptive concepts like CE face in penetrating and transforming disciplinary knowledge, informing both CE scholarship and broader science mapping methodologies. Originality/Value This research introduces a novel framework for evaluating how interdisciplinary concepts are recontextualized within disciplinary boundaries, offering valuable insights into the integration of CE and advancing approaches in science mapping.