IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i11p5007-d1667730.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review of Implementing Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Approaches for the Circular Economy and Cost Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh

    (LSBU Business School, London South Bank University, 103 Borough Road, London SE1 0AA, UK)

  • Silvio Aldrovandi

    (LSBU Business School, London South Bank University, 103 Borough Road, London SE1 0AA, UK)

  • Willy Sher

    (School of Architecture and Built Environment, College of Engineering, Science and Environment, The University of Newcastle (UON), University Drive, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia)

Abstract

This study advances circular economy initiatives by advocating for the use of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM). MCDM methods address the complex multi-faceted aspects of a product or process. They enable conflicting calculations of energy, cost, environmental criteria, and payback periods to be balanced. A systematic critical systematic review and bibliometric analysis were conducted to investigate the contribution of MCDM to the circular economy. The Scopus database was the primary data source reviewed. The geographical distribution, main research sources, and keyword co-occurrences were analyzed across 31 peer-reviewed book chapters, conference papers, and journal articles. The journal Sustainability (Switzerland) had the most publications (4), followed by the Journal of Business Strategy and the Environment and the Journal of Cleaner Production, each with two articles. Recently MCDM has gained popularity as a tool for evaluating the circular economy. This growing interest may be attributed to the complexity of the circular economy, as MCDM effectively balances multiple environmental criteria while integrating evaluations of economic cost and social impact. Criteria are incommensurable as each criterion has a distinct unit of measurement, making it impossible to compare outcomes across different indicators. MCDM is thus an ideal technique for assessing different options by integrating criteria within testable frameworks. However, no established patterns for selecting specific MCDM methods were identified. This is despite some options (e.g., combinations of AHP and TOPSIS) being used more frequently than others. In conclusion, all the studies identified financial factors as the most significant or highly sensitive issue in the transition toward a circular economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh & Silvio Aldrovandi & Willy Sher, 2025. "A Systematic Review of Implementing Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Approaches for the Circular Economy and Cost Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-24, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:11:p:5007-:d:1667730
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/5007/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/5007/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ana Nadazdi & Zorana Naunovic & Nenad Ivanisevic, 2022. "Circular Economy in Construction and Demolition Waste Management in the Western Balkans: A Sustainability Assessment Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Ana Garcia-Bernabeu & Adolfo Hilario-Caballero & David Pla-Santamaria & Francisco Salas-Molina, 2020. "A Process Oriented MCDM Approach to Construct a Circular Economy Composite Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-14, January.
    3. Lee, Sir Yee & Hu, Jiayao & Lim, Ming K, 2021. "Maximising the circular economy and sustainability outcomes: An end-of-life tyre recycling outlets selection model," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    4. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    5. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Correction to: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 907-908, January.
    6. Nancy Bocken & Lars Strupeit & Katherine Whalen & Julia Nußholz, 2019. "A Review and Evaluation of Circular Business Model Innovation Tools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-25, April.
    7. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    8. Camelia Delcea & Ionuț Nica & Irina Georgescu & Nora Chiriță & Cristian Ciurea, 2024. "Integrating Fuzzy MCDM Methods and ARDL Approach for Circular Economy Strategy Analysis in Romania," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-35, September.
    9. Chauhan, Chetna & Parida, Vinit & Dhir, Amandeep, 2022. "Linking circular economy and digitalisation technologies: A systematic literature review of past achievements and future promises," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    10. Fahime Lotfian Delouyi & Meisam Ranjbari & Zahra Shams Esfandabadi, 2023. "A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Explore Barriers to the Circular Economy Implementation in the Food Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-23, June.
    11. Mladen Krstić & Leonardo Agnusdei & Pamela Palmi & Tomas Baležentis, 2024. "Enabling organizations to strategically manage risks in circular supply chains," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 5996-6009, September.
    12. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 871-906, January.
    13. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Huseyin Haliloglu & Ahmet Feyzioglu & Leonardo Piccinetti & Trevor Omoruyi & Muzeyyen Burcu Hidimoglu & Akin Emrecan Gok, 2025. "Investigation of Corporate Sustainability Performance Data and Developing an Innovation-Oriented Novel Analysis Method with Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-58, October.
    2. Claudemir Tramarico & Antonella Petrillo & Herlandí Andrade & Valério Salomon, 2025. "Advancing Circular Supplier Selection: Multi-Criteria Perspectives on Risk and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-24, July.
    3. Mahyar Kamali Saraji & Milad Torabi, 2025. "Progress Toward a Circular Economy: A Comparative Analysis of EU Member States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-21, September.
    4. İrem Pelit & İlker İbrahim Avşar, 2025. "Turkiye’s Carbon Emission Profile: A Global Analysis with the MEREC-PROMETHEE Hybrid Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-22, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    2. Lijia Shi & Lisa A. House & Zhifeng Gao, 2013. "Impact of Purchase Intentions on Full and Partial Bids in BDM Auctions: Willingness-to-pay for Organic and Local Blueberries," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 707-718, September.
    3. Mehdi Toloo & Rouhollah Khodabandelou & Amar Oukil, 2022. "A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Fractional Programming (1965–2020)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-21, May.
    4. Dušan Nikolić & Dragan Ivanović & Lidija Ivanović, 2024. "An open-source tool for merging data from multiple citation databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4573-4595, July.
    5. Basheer Kalash & Sarah Guillou & Lionel Nesta & Michele Pezzoni, 2024. "Does Lab Funding Matter for the Technological Application of Scientific Research? An Empirical Analysis of French Labs," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 153, pages 39-76.
    6. Mike Thelwall & Stephen Pinfield, 2024. "The accuracy of field classifications for journals in Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(2), pages 1097-1117, February.
    7. Anting Wang & Mohd Nizam Osman & Megat Al-Imran Yasin & Nurul Ain Mohd Hasan & Ying Cui, 2024. "Tracing Evolution and Communication Dynamics in Chinese Independent Documentary Films (2012-2022): A Systematic Review of Genre, Censorship, Culture, and Distribution," Studies in Media and Communication, Redfame publishing, vol. 12(1), pages 368-381, March.
    8. Shiri Melumad & Rhonda Hadi & Christian Hildebrand & Adrian F. Ward, 2020. "Technology-Augmented Choice: How Digital Innovations Are Transforming Consumer Decision Processes," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 7(3), pages 90-101, October.
    9. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    10. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    11. Elena Andriollo & Alberto Caimo & Laura Secco & Elena Pisani, 2021. "Collaborations in Environmental Initiatives for an Effective “Adaptive Governance” of Social–Ecological Systems: What Existing Literature Suggests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-29, July.
    12. Raphael Thomadsen & Robert P. Rooderkerk & On Amir & Neeraj Arora & Bryan Bollinger & Karsten Hansen & Leslie John & Wendy Liu & Aner Sela & Vishal Singh & K. Sudhir & Wendy Wood, 2018. "How Context Affects Choice," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 5(1), pages 3-14, March.
    13. repec:dar:wpaper:132320 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. repec:cdl:indrel:qt89r4h7d9 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Pronobesh Banerjee & Krishanu Rakshit & Sanjay Mishra & Tamara Masters, 2024. "Attribute ratings and their impact on attraction and compromise effects," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 439-450, September.
    16. Enrique Orduña-Malea & Núria Bautista-Puig, 2024. "Research assessment under debate: disentangling the interest around the DORA declaration on Twitter," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 537-559, January.
    17. Diels, Jana Luisa & Wiebach, Nicole, 2011. "Customer reactions in Out-of-Stock situations: Do promotion-induced phantom positions alleviate the similarity substitution hypothsis?," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2011-021, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    18. Kelly Gerakoudi-Ventouri, 2022. "Review of studies of blockchain technology effects on the shipping industry," Journal of Shipping and Trade, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, December.
    19. Luiza Loredana Năstase, 2025. "Sustainable Education and University Students’ Well-Being in the Digital Age: A Mixed-Methods Study on Problematic Smartphone Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-34, June.
    20. Safoora Pitsi & Jon Billsberry & Mary Barrett, 2024. "A Bibliometric Review of Research on Intelligence in Leadership Studies," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 13(5), pages 528-541, October.
    21. Yang Ding & Fernando Moreira, 2025. "Funding and productivity: Does winning grants affect the scientific productivity of recipients? Evidence from the social sciences and economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1831-1870, March.
    22. DIODATO Dario, 2024. "Handbook of Economic Complexity for Policy," JRC Research Reports JRC138666, Joint Research Centre.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:11:p:5007-:d:1667730. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.