Operationalizing the Circular Economy:  A PRISMA- Based Review of EPR and C&D Waste Governance in India

Operationalizing the Circular Economy: A PRISMA- Based Review of EPR and C&D Waste Governance in India | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Operationalizing the Circular Economy: A PRISMA- Based Review of EPR and C&D Waste Governance in India Kamlesh Ramesh Damdoo, Lukman E. Mansuri This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8475111/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The construction and demolition (C&D) sector is a major contributor to material consumption and waste generation, making it a critical focal point for circular economy (CE) transitions. In India, the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) under the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules 2025 represents a significant policy shift toward lifecycle-based material governance. However, the effectiveness of EPR in delivering circular outcomes remains uncertain. This study presents a systematic review of academic literature and policy documents to critically examine the design, implementation, and performance of EPR oriented C&D waste governance in India within a global context. Following the PRISMA 2020 protocol, 130 sources, including peer reviewed studies and official policy documents, were systematically analyzed. The review develops a conceptual framework that links policy intent, EPR design, enterprise readiness, and circular outcomes, highlighting enterprise readiness as a key mediating factor. A critical policy analysis reveals that while India’s regulatory framework aligns with international circular economy principles, significant implementation gaps persist due to ambiguous responsibility allocation, weak enforcement mechanisms, and underdeveloped markets for secondary construction materials. Comparative analysis with the European Union and Japan demonstrates that EPR effectiveness is strongly associated with institutional clarity, capability building mechanisms, and enforcement intensity. To address these gaps, the study proposes a Circular Capability Maturity Model (CCMM) as a structured pathway for assessing and enhancing enterprise readiness for EPR implementation. By shifting the focus from compliance-based regulation to capability oriented governance, the paper contributes a theoretically grounded and policy relevant framework to advance circular construction transitions in emerging economies. Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Background and Introduction 1.1 Background: Construction Waste Governance in the Circular Economy Era The construction sector is globally recognized as one of the largest consumers of raw materials and generators of solid waste, accounting for nearly 30–35% of total material use and waste generation worldwide (UNEP, 2021; Ghisellini et al., 2016 ). In the Indian context, accelerated urbanization, large-scale infrastructure programs, and post-pandemic economic recovery have significantly increased construction and demolition (C&D) waste generation since 2020 (CPCB, 2023; MoHUA, 2024). Recent estimates suggest that India generates over 150 million tonnes of C&D waste annually, with a substantial portion remaining unprocessed or informally managed (CPCB, 2023). Post 2020 scholarly literature consistently highlights that C&D waste management in India has historically followed a linear disposal-oriented model, characterized by open dumping, landfilling, and ad hoc reuse practices (Sharma et al., 2021 ; Jain et al., 2022). Even after the enforcement of the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016, multiple empirical studies report weak compliance, limited recycling infrastructure utilization, and over reliance on urban local bodies for waste handling. This governance structure has resulted in fragmented accountability, where waste generators and material producers remain largely detached from end of life responsibility. Recent policy evaluations argue that municipality centric waste governance is structurally inadequate for managing contemporary construction supply chains, which involve multiple upstream and downstream actors (Singh et al., 2022; Dantata et al., 2023). These limitations have become increasingly visible in Indian cities, where informal recycling coexists with formal infrastructure, creating enforcement gaps and traceability challenges (CPCB, 2023; MoHUA, 2024). The Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules 2025, notified by the Government of India, represent a regulatory inflection point by explicitly introducing lifecycle accountability and producer responsibility principles into construction waste governance (Gazette of India, 2025 ). This regulatory shift aligns with global post 2020 trends that emphasize circular economy based waste governance over conventional disposal models (UNEP, 2021; European Commission, 2022 ). The construction and demolition (C&D) sector has traditionally operated within a linear material paradigm characterized by high reliance on virgin resources, limited material traceability, and extensive landfill disposal at the end of the life stage. Rapid urbanization, infrastructure expansion, and tightening environmental constraints have intensified the model's unsustainability, necessitating a transition to circular material management in construction. This transition involves shifting from one-way disposal practices to closed-loop systems emphasizing material recovery, reuse, and secondary material markets across the construction lifecycle. Policy instruments, particularly Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), have emerged as critical enablers of this transformation by extending accountability beyond waste disposal to include lifecycle material stewardship. 1.2 Circular Economy and Construction: Post-2020 Policy and Research Evolution Since 2020, the Circular Economy (CE) has transitioned from a conceptual sustainability narrative to a policy-operational framework across multiple sectors, including construction (Kirchherr et al., 2017 ; Martin Calisto Friant. et a.l, 2020). Contemporary construction focused studies emphasize that circularity extends beyond recycling to encompass material efficiency, adaptive reuse, modular construction, and closed loop material flows across the building lifecycle (Pomponi & Moncaster, 2021 ; AlJaber A, et a.l, 2023). Indian construction sector studies published after 2020 repeatedly underline the gap between circular economy aspirations and on-ground implementation (Sharma et al., 2021 ; Jain et al., 2022). Empirical evidence from major Indian cities indicates that recycling facilities often operate below capacity due to inadequate waste segregation, weak demand for recycled products, and the absence of upstream regulatory pressure (Gasparri, E; CPCB, 2023). These findings reinforce the argument that voluntary or market driven approaches are insufficient to deliver circular construction outcomes in India. Government reports released after 2020 increasingly position C&D waste as a strategic resource stream within India’s broader circular economy roadmap (MoHUA, 2024; NITI Aayog, 2022). The incorporation of circular economy principles into statutory waste rules is therefore viewed as a necessary step toward aligning construction practices with national sustainability and resource-efficiency goals. 1.3 Extended Producer Responsibility in Construction: Emerging Regulatory Logic Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has gained significant regulatory traction since 2020 as a core policy instrument for advancing circular economy objectives (OECD, 2021). While EPR frameworks are well established in sectors such as plastics and electronic waste, recent academic literature explores their applicability to complex sectors like construction, where material flows are long lived and multi actor driven. Post-2020 studies argue that the absence of producer responsibility in construction waste governance perpetuates linear material flows and discourages design for recovery practices (Pomponi & Moncaster, 2021 ; AlJaber, A, 2023). EPR-based approaches, by contrast, have the potential to incentivize material standardization, recyclable product design, and investment in formal recycling infrastructure (OECD, 2021; Dantata et al., 2023). India’s experience with EPR in plastic and e-waste management has significantly influenced the regulatory logic underpinning the C&D Waste Management Rules 2025 (CPCB, 2024; MoHUA, 2024). Policy documents explicitly acknowledge the need to shift responsibility upstream by imposing obligations on bulk waste generators, developers, and material producers, marking a departure from earlier municipal-centric frameworks (Gazette of India, 2025 ). 2. Research Gap and Research Objectives 2.1 Research Gap: Need for a 2020–2025 Systematic Policy Review Despite a growing body of post 2020 research on C&D waste and circular construction, existing studies remain fragmented and predominantly technical in focus, emphasizing recycling technologies, material characterization, and case-specific challenges (Jain et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2022). Systematic reviews that critically examine regulatory evolution and policy effectiveness, particularly in relation to EPR adoption in construction, remain scarce. Moreover, many available reviews rely on pre 2020 literature, limiting their relevance in light of recent regulatory developments, including the notification of the C&D Waste Management Rules 2025 (Gasparri, E, 2023). Regulatory documents and government reports, despite their central role in shaping practice, are often excluded from systematic syntheses, creating a disconnect between academic evidence and policy reality (Watkins et al., 2022). To address these limitations, a hybrid PRISMA based systematic review combined with structured policy analysis is essential. By restricting the evidence base to peer reviewed journal articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, along with authoritative government documents published between 2020 and 2025, this study ensures analytical rigor, policy relevance, and temporal validity. 2.2 Research Objectives: The primary objective of this study is to critically evaluate India’s transition from linear C&D waste disposal to EPR driven circular construction governance through the lens of the C&D Waste Management Rules 2025. Specifically, the study aims to: Systematically synthesize post 2020 peer-reviewed literature on C&D waste management, circular economy, and EPR in India (Kirchherr et al., 2017 ; Jain et al., 2022). Critically analyze the intent, scope, and regulatory mechanisms of the C&D Waste Management Rules 2025 using official government sources (MoHUA, 2024; Gazette of India, 2025 ). Identify institutional and implementation challenges associated with operationalizing EPR in the construction sector (Gasparri, E, 2023; Dantata et al., 2023). By adhering strictly to recent high-quality sources, this paper contributes an up-to-date, policy-integrated synthesis that supports evidence-based refinement of circular construction governance in India. 3. Review Methodology: Hybrid PRISMA-Based Systematic Review and Policy Analysis 3.1 Research Design and Review Logic This study adopts a hybrid systematic review methodology that integrates the PRISMA 2020 framework with a structured policy and regulatory analysis. This approach is increasingly recommended for research that examines evolving regulatory instruments alongside peer-reviewed academic evidence, particularly in sustainability and environmental governance domains (Page et al., 2021 ). A conventional systematic review alone is insufficient for evaluating construction and demolition (C&D) waste governance, as regulatory effectiveness is shaped not only by empirical research findings but also by statutory rules, implementation guidelines, and institutional arrangements. Conversely, policy reviews that lack a systematic synthesis of academic literature risk anecdotal interpretation. The hybrid approach employed in this study ensures analytical rigor, transparency, and policy relevance by formally combining both streams (Watkins et al., 2022; Adams et al., 2023). The review is guided by two interlinked analytical questions: 1. How has post-2020 academic literature conceptualized and evaluated C&D waste management, circular economy integration, and EPR in the Indian construction sector? 2. To what extent do India’s evolving regulatory instruments, particularly the C&D Waste Management Rules 2025, operationalize circular economy and EPR principles in practice? 3.2 Data Sources and Evidence Streams 3.2.1 Academic Literature To ensure academic quality and reproducibility, this review restricted its evidence base to peer reviewed journal articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science. These databases are widely recognized for their comprehensive coverage of high impact journals in construction management, sustainability, environmental policy, and waste management (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2021; Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020 ). 3.2.2 Policy and Regulatory Documents To capture the governance context shaping construction sector circularity in India, authoritative policy documents were systematically included as a parallel evidence stream. These comprised: Statutory notifications and amendments published in the Gazette of India Official rules, guidelines, and implementation frameworks issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) Technical reports, compliance assessments, and monitoring documents issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Table 1 systematically maps the evolution of the circular economy and Extended Producer Responsibility oriented policies in the Indian construction and infrastructure sector between 2020 and 2025 against their observed implementation practices. The comparison indicates a progressive strengthening of regulatory intent, particularly in material recovery targets, digital reporting mechanisms, and lifecycle accountability provisions. However, the table also reveals persistent gaps between policy formulation and on-ground execution, especially in enforcement capacity, enterprise readiness, and market integration of recycled construction materials. Several policy instruments remain largely compliance-oriented rather than capability driven. As highlighted in Table 1 , the effectiveness of India’s circular construction transition is constrained less by policy absence and more by implementation and institutional limitations. Table 1 Mapping of Circular Economy and Extended Producer Responsibility Policies to Practice in the Indian Construction and Infrastructure Sector (2020–2025) Policy / Regulatory Instrument (India) Year CE Principle Addressed EPR Dimension Policy Intent (Strategic Level) Observed / Expected Practice in Construction & Infrastructure Implementation Gaps Identified Key Sources Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules 2016 (Amended & enforced 2021–2023) Resource recovery; material looping Shared responsibility of waste generators Promote recycling and reuse of C&D waste and reduce landfill dependency Establishment of C&D recycling plants; mandatory waste segregation at source in urban projects Weak enforcement outside Tier-1 cities; low demand for recycled aggregates Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (2021); CPCB (2022) Plastic Waste Management Rules (EPR Guidelines) 2022 Design for circularity; waste reduction Mandatory EPR (collection, recycling, reporting) Shift plastic lifecycle responsibility to producers and brand owners Adoption of EPR portals; use of recycled plastic in road construction Compliance driven by reporting, not performance; limited quality assurance CPCB (2022); MoHUA (2023) National Resource Efficiency Policy (Draft) 2019–2024 (policy actions ongoing) Resource efficiency; lifecycle optimization Indirect EPR alignment Reduce virgin material consumption across sectors Lifecycle-based material selection in infrastructure tenders Policy not legally binding; fragmented adoption NITI Aayog (2021); MoHUA (2022) Swachh Bharat Mission–Urban 2.0 2021 Waste valorization; circular urban metabolism Municipal-level responsibility Promote scientific waste processing and circular cities Integration of C&D waste reuse in smart city projects Focus remains sanitation-centric, not circularity-centric MoHUA (2021, 2023) National Infrastructure Pipeline (NIP) 2020–2025 Sustainable asset creation Producer accountability (implicit) Encourage sustainable infrastructure investment Inclusion of green clauses in PPP contracts Lack of CE-specific performance indicators Ministry of Finance ( 2022 ) Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) Updated 2023 Design for reuse; lifecycle thinking Voluntary producer responsibility Incentivize sustainable building design Increased adoption in public sector buildings Voluntary nature limits sector-wide impact GRIHA Council (2023) Indian Road Congress Guidelines (Plastic Roads) Updated 2020–2022 Waste-to-resource conversion Product stewardship Promote reuse of plastic waste in pavements Operational use in highways and urban roads Supply chain inconsistency of processed plastic IRC (2021); MoRTH (2022) Smart Cities Mission Guidelines Revised 2021 Circular urban systems Localized responsibility Promote integrated, resource-efficient cities Pilot circular construction practices in select cities Replication across cities remains limited MoHUA (2021, 2024) Draft EPR Framework for C&D Waste Under discussion (2023–2025) Closed-loop material cycles Formal EPR for construction materials Extend producer responsibility to construction inputs Early-stage pilots for cement and steel Absence of legal mandate delays adoption CPCB (2023); MoHUA (2024) Gazette Notifications on Recycled Material Use in Public Works 2020–2024 Market creation for secondary materials Demand-side EPR Mandate recycled content in government projects Increased procurement of recycled aggregates Quality perception issues among engineers Gazette of India (2021, 2023) Source: Generated by Author 3.3 Search Strategy and Keyword Development A structured search strategy was developed to identify relevant sources published between January 2020 and March 2025, ensuring temporal alignment with recent regulatory developments and contemporary CE discourse. Search strings were iteratively refined to balance sensitivity and specificity, following PRISMA 2020 recommendations. Core keyword combinations included: “Construction and demolition waste” OR “C&D waste management” “Circular economy” AND “construction” “Extended Producer Responsibility” AND “construction” “C&D Waste Management Rules” AND “India” “Construction waste policy” AND “India” Boolean operators (AND/OR), truncation, and database-specific filters were applied. Search strings were customized for Scopus and WoS to reflect differences in indexing structures. Policy documents were identified through structured searches of MoHUA, CPCB, and Gazette of India repositories using equivalent keyword logic and publication year filters. 3.4 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria To maintain consistency with the study's objectives and minimize selection bias, specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were established beforehand. Inclusion Criteria: Peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in Scopus or Web of Science Publications between 2020 and 2025 Explicit focus on at least one of the following: C&D waste management Circular economy in construction Extended Producer Responsibility Waste governance or regulatory analysis in India Official government documents related to C&D waste, CE, or EPR issued during the same period Exclusion Criteria Conference papers, editorials, commentaries, and non-peer-reviewed articles Studies published before 2020 Articles unrelated to the construction sector Purely technical material testing studies are lacking in governance or waste management relevance Non-authoritative web sources or opinion based publications 3.5 Study Selection Process: PRISMA 2020 Compliance The study selection process strictly followed the PRISMA 2020 four-stage framework: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Identification Stage: (i) Database searches yielded 1,124 academic records (642 from Scopus and 482 from Web of Science). In parallel, 46 policy and regulatory documents were identified from official government repositories. After importing all records into a reference management system, 278 duplicate records were removed, resulting in 892 unique records for screening. (ii) Screening Stage Title and abstract screening of academic records excluded 561 articles due to lack of relevance to construction, CE, EPR, or Indian policy context. Following this stage, 331 records proceeded to full-text assessment. (iii) Eligibility Stage Full-text screening excluded 201 academic articles for reasons including insufficient regulatory focus, lack of policy relevance, or redundancy. Simultaneously, 12 policy documents were excluded because they were draft versions, superseded instruments, or tangential to C&D waste governance. (iv) Inclusion Stage The final review corpus comprised 130 sources, including: 104 peer-reviewed journal articles 26 official government documents Figure 1 presents a detailed PRISMA 2020 compliant flow diagram illustrating the systematic identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and final inclusion of studies relevant to circular economy and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in the construction sector. The explicit use of decision nodes with yes/no conditions enhances methodological transparency by clearly documenting how records were excluded at each stage based on predefined criteria, including topical relevance, sectoral focus, and analytical rigor. The diagram also integrates grey literature and policy documents alongside peer-reviewed sources, reflecting the governance-oriented nature of the review. By visually accounting for duplicates, exclusions, and full-text eligibility decisions, Fig. 1 strengthens the reproducibility and auditability of the review process in line with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. This structured approach ensures that the final evidence base is both comprehensive and methodologically robust. 3.6 Systematic Identification and Screening of Policy Documents Policy documents were screened using a three-stage validation protocol to ensure consistency and regulatory relevance: 1. Institutional Legitimacy Filter – Only documents issued by statutory authorities (MoHUA, CPCB, Gazette of India) were included. 2. Temporal Relevance Filter – Documents published, amended, or enforced between 2020 and 2025 were retained. 3. Regulatory Relevance Filter – Documents explicitly addressing C&D waste, circular economy principles, lifecycle material governance, or EPR mechanisms were included. This structured protocol ensures that policy analysis is neither selective nor anecdotal, but systematically aligned with the academic review. 3.7 Data Extraction and Synthesis Approach A structured data extraction template was developed to capture: Author(s) and year Study objectives and scope Methodological approach Key findings related to CE, EPR, or C&D waste governance Policy and implementation implications For policy documents, additional variables included regulatory scope, institutional roles, enforcement mechanisms, and monitoring provisions. Synthesis followed a thematic analysis approach, clustering findings into recurrent themes such as regulatory evolution, EPR integration, enterprise readiness, institutional capacity, market dynamics, and digital monitoring systems. This enabled systematic comparison between policy intent and empirical evidence. 3.8 Methodological Rigor and Bias Mitigation Several measures were adopted to enhance rigor and reduce bias. Exclusive reliance on Scopus and Web of Science ensured academic quality. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria minimized subjective judgment. Triangulation between academic literature and statutory documents strengthened the validity of policy interpretations. Limitations associated with publication bias and regional concentration of studies were acknowledged and addressed through cautious interpretation of findings. The methodological transparency provided by PRISMA 2020 further enhances the reproducibility and credibility of the review (Page et al., 2021 ). 4. Conceptual Framework Development Based on PRISMA Outcomes 4.1 Rationale and Evidence Base for Framework Development The conceptual framework proposed in this study is grounded in a systematic synthesis of evidence derived from the PRISMA 2020 guided review of peer reviewed literature and official policy documents. The PRISMA outcomes revealed recurring analytical constructs across studies addressing circular economy (CE) governance, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and construction and demolition (C&D) waste management, particularly within emerging economies (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020 ; OECD, 2021). Rather than treating CE policy instruments as isolated regulatory interventions, the reviewed literature consistently emphasized the need to understand how policy intent is translated into operational mechanisms and mediated by enterprise level capabilities. This insight provided the foundational logic for developing a relational, systems oriented conceptual framework. 4.2 Policy Intent as the Upstream Driver At the upstream level, policy intent represents the strategic objectives articulated within national and sectoral regulations, including material recovery targets, waste diversion mandates, lifecycle accountability, and institutional enforcement provisions. In the Indian context, this intent is reflected in the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, subsequent amendments, and the introduction of EPR-oriented provisions aimed at improving accountability across the construction value chain (MoEFCC, 2025). However, the PRISMA synthesis highlights that strong regulatory intent does not automatically translate into effective implementation, particularly in sectors characterized by fragmented supply chains and heterogeneous enterprise capabilities (Ghosh & Dubey, 2022). Source: Authors’ conceptual framework developed through PRISMA 2020–based synthesis of circular economy governance and Extended Producer Responsibility literature (adapted fro m Geissdoerfer et al., 2020 ; OECD, 2021; Kirchherr et al., 2023). 4.3 EPR Design Features as the Translational Mechanism The framework positions EPR design features as the critical translational layer through which policy intent is operationalized. These features include scope definition, role allocation among producers and contractors, compliance mechanisms, digital tracking systems, and reporting obligations. Evidence from international and Indian studies indicates that poorly specified EPR design often leads to symbolic compliance rather than substantive circular outcomes (European Commission, 2022 ; OECD, 2021). As illustrated in Fig. 2 , EPR design functions as a structural conduit, determining whether policy intent remains aspirational or becomes actionable within construction practices. 4.4 Enterprise Readiness as a Mediating Construct A central contribution of the framework is the explicit incorporation of enterprise readiness as a mediating construct between EPR design and circular outcomes. Enterprise readiness encompasses technical capability, managerial competence, financial capacity, access to secondary material markets, and organizational willingness to innovate. The PRISMA-based evidence consistently identifies enterprise readiness as a decisive factor explaining uneven EPR performance across regions and firm types ( Jain et al., 2024 ). As depicted in Fig. 2 , enterprise readiness interacts bidirectionally with EPR design, as compliance experiences and cost benefit perceptions feed back into firms’ adaptive responses and innovation strategies. 4.5 Circular Construction Outcomes and System-Level Impacts Downstream, circular construction outcomes represent measurable impacts at the project, enterprise, and sectoral levels. These include improved material recovery rates, increased use of recycled aggregates, reduced landfill dependence, and enhanced environmental and economic resilience of the construction sector. Importantly, the framework treats outcomes not as end points but as inputs for policy learning, thereby embedding circularity as a dynamic governance process rather than a static compliance target (UNEP, 2023). 4.6 Feedback Loops and Moderating Factors A key advancement over earlier frameworks is the integration of feedback loops and moderating factors, which directly addresses the reviewer’s concern regarding descriptive linearity. Feedback loops enable observed outcomes to inform regulatory refinement, enforcement recalibration, and EPR redesign over time. Moderating factors such as enforcement strength, inter-agency coordination, market maturity for recycled materials, and regional governance capacity are explicitly embedded across framework linkages to explain context-specific performance variations (Kirchherr et al., 2023). These dynamics are visually represented in Fig. 2 , reinforcing the adaptive and iterative nature of circular economy governance. 4.7 Integrative Role of the Conceptual Framework Overall, the conceptual framework synthesized in this study operationalizes the policy design capability outcome nexus within the construction sector. By systematically linking PRISMA derived evidence to governance theory and enterprise behavior, the framework provides a robust analytical lens for subsequent critical policy analysis and supports the methodological foundation for the proposed Circular Capability Maturity Model (CCMM). The visual representation in Fig. 2 ensures conceptual clarity, analytical transparency, and direct applicability for both academic inquiry and policy evaluation. Table 2 Linkages Between Policy Intent, EPR Design, Enterprise Readiness, and Circular Outcomes in the Construction Sector Framework Dimension Sub-Dimension / Component Operational Meaning in Construction Context Key Evidence from PRISMA Review Observed Challenges Implications for Circular Outcomes Policy Intent Circular economy vision Long-term objectives related to waste reduction, resource efficiency, and lifecycle thinking CE policies emphasize diversion of C&D waste from landfills Broad goals lack sector-specific operational clarity Weak translation of vision into practice Regulatory mandates Statutory obligations under C&D Waste Rules and EPR provisions Mandatory recovery targets and reporting requirements Ambiguity in enforcement responsibility Inconsistent compliance across regions Institutional governance Roles of ministries, urban local bodies, and regulators Multi-agency governance structure Fragmented authority and coordination gaps Delayed or partial policy execution EPR Design Features Organizational capability Governance structures and managerial commitment Leadership support varies across firms Lack of internal CE governance Ad hoc implementation of EPR Technical capability Waste segregation, processing, and reuse technologies Proven technical feasibility of recycled C&D use Uneven access to technology Localized circular practices only Financial capability Investment capacity and cost recovery High upfront costs deter participation Limited financial incentives Slows scaling of circular solutions Market integration Demand for secondary construction materials Weak and unstable recycled material markets Preference for virgin materials Low uptake of recycled outputs Moderating Factors Enforcement strength Inspection frequency and penalty enforcement Enforcement capacity varies regionally Enforcement capacity varies regionally Uneven EPR performance Market maturity Availability of buyers and price stability Secondary markets underdeveloped Price volatility Limits long-term investment Informal sector role Contribution of informal recyclers Significant informal participation Lack of formal recognition Data invisibility and quality risks Circular Outcomes Resource efficiency Reduction in virgin material use Reuse feasible in backfill and aggregates Scale limited by demand Partial circularity Waste diversion Reduction of landfill disposal Improved segregation in select cities Uneven implementation Regional disparities System resilience Adaptive capacity of construction sector CE improves material security Policy feedback weak Slow learning and adaptation Source Authors’ synthesis based on PRISMA 2020 systematic review findings and circular economy governance literature ( Geissdoerfer et al., 2020 ; OECD, 2021; Kirchherr et al., 2023; MoEFCC, 2025). 5. Critical Policy Analysis and International Comparison 5.1 Critical Assessment of India’s EPR-Oriented C&D Waste Governance India’s Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Management Rules (2025) represent a significant policy shift toward embedding circular economy (CE) principles and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) within the construction sector. The revised framework articulates ambitious objectives, including enhanced material recovery targets, lifecycle accountability, and digital tracking of waste flows. However, evidence synthesized through the PRISMA based review indicates that the operationalization of EPR remains uneven, with substantial divergence between regulatory intent and implementation outcomes (OECD, 2021; MoEFCC, 2025). A critical limitation lies in fragmented responsibility allocation, where project owners, contractors, producers, and local authorities share overlapping obligations without clearly defined enforcement hierarchies. This ambiguity weakens compliance incentives and dilutes accountability across the construction value chain. Furthermore, enforcement mechanisms remain predominantly compliance-oriented rather than capability driven, limiting the ability of enterprises to internalize circular practices (Kirchherr et al., 2023). Empirical studies demonstrate that the technical feasibility of circular construction is not a limiting factor. For instance, recycled C&D waste has been successfully utilized as backfill material without compromising geotechnical performance, supporting closed-loop material use in infrastructure projects (Prajapati & Rangwala, 2022). Similarly, controlled reuse of solid waste has shown potential to improve soil performance characteristics, indicating value added reuse pathways (Rangwala & Prajapati, 2025). These findings reinforce that implementation gaps are primarily institutional and market-based, rather than technological. 5.2 International Comparison of Construction-Sector EPR Frameworks To contextualize India’s policy trajectory, a comparative benchmarking analysis was conducted against established international EPR models in the European Union and Japan. These jurisdictions exhibit mature EPR systems characterized by statutory clarity, robust enforcement, integrated digital monitoring, and strong market demand for secondary construction materials (European Commission, 2022; OECD, 2021). Table 3. Comparative Benchmarking of Construction-Sector Extended Producer Responsibility Frameworks: India and International Practices Aspects India (C&D Rules 2025) European Union Japan Implications for India Regulatory maturity Emerging Mature, directive-based Long-established Phased institutional learning needed Responsibility allocation Fragmented Clearly assigned Producer-centric Reduce role ambiguity Enforcement Limited penalties Strong audits & sanctions Strict inspections Strengthen compliance mechanisms Digital tracking Early-stage Integrated registries Mandatory platforms Scale interoperable systems Secondary material markets Weak demand Well-established Highly formalized Stimulate demand-side incentives Informal sector role Dominant Minimal Structured inclusion Formalize and upskill Source: Authors’ synthesis based on OECD (2021), European Commission (2022), Kirchherr et al. (2023), and MoEFCC (2025) As shown in Table 3, international experience underscores the importance of aligning regulatory ambition with enterprise capability support and market creation mechanisms. India’s current framework exhibits policy convergence with global norms but lacks the institutional depth required for consistent EPR performance. 5.3 Policy–Practice Gaps and Systemic Constraints The analysis identifies four systemic constraints limiting effective EPR implementation in India: (i) weak enforcement capacity at the municipal and regional levels, (ii) insufficient enterprise readiness in terms of finance, technology, and skills, (iii) underdeveloped secondary material markets, and (iv) limited policy feedback mechanisms. These constraints interact dynamically, reinforcing implementation inertia. As illustrated in Figure 1, enterprise readiness mediates the translation of EPR design into circular outcomes, while moderating factors such as enforcement strength and market maturity shape performance variability across regions and project types. This systems level diagnosis moves beyond policy enumeration toward explanatory governance analysis (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020; UNEP, 2023). 6. Policy Implications for India’s C&D Waste Management Rules (2025 and Beyond) 6.1 Reframing Regulation from Compliance to Capability Development The synthesis of PRISMA based evidence and the conceptual framework developed in this study indicate that India’s evolving C&D Waste Management Rules must transition from a predominantly compliance-driven regulatory model toward a capability-oriented governance approach. Existing policy instruments implicitly assume homogeneity in enterprise capacity, despite consistent empirical evidence demonstrating wide disparities in organizational, technical, and financial readiness across construction firms (Table 2 ). As illustrated in Fig. 1 , enterprise readiness mediates the effectiveness of EPR design, suggesting that uniform enforcement mechanisms may inadvertently reinforce superficial compliance rather than substantive circular transformation (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020 ; Bhavsar et al., 2023 ). Future regulatory frameworks should therefore embed mechanisms that actively support progressive capability development alongside enforcement. 6.2 Designing Maturity-Sensitive EPR Frameworks Building on international best practices and the comparative insights presented in Table 3 , EPR provisions for construction materials in India should be reconfigured as maturity sensitive instruments. Rather than imposing identical obligations across all enterprises, a tiered EPR architecture aligned with demonstrated levels of organizational governance, operational capability, and reporting maturity can enhance regulatory legitimacy and effectiveness. Such graduated frameworks have been shown to reduce compliance fatigue and encourage incremental learning and innovation, particularly among small and medium enterprises (Purchase et al., 2021 ; Papamichael et al., 2023 ). Aligning EPR obligations with maturity progression also creates a natural interface with the proposed Circular Capability Maturity Model (CCMM), reinforcing coherence between policy design and enterprise behavior. 6.3 Leveraging Public Procurement as a Circular Readiness Accelerator Public infrastructure procurement emerges as a strategically underutilized lever for accelerating circular readiness within the construction sector. Evidence from recent studies indicates that demand-side policy instruments, including lifecycle based evaluation criteria, recycled material thresholds, and preferential scoring for circular capability, can significantly influence enterprise investment decisions and operational practices (Shooshtarian et al., 2022 ; Swarnakar & Khalfan, 2024 ). Integrating circular readiness indicators derived from the CCMM dimensions into public procurement frameworks can catalyze capability development across both large EPC firms and SMEs. This approach aligns market incentives with regulatory intent, reinforcing the feedback loops depicted in Fig. 1 . 6.4 Institutional Roles and Governance Alignment Effective implementation of readiness-based circular governance requires coordinated institutional action across national and sub-national agencies. Organizations such as the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) are well-positioned to evolve from traditional oversight roles toward capability orchestration and system facilitation. This includes issuing standardized operational guidelines, supporting pilot EPR programs, enabling interoperable digital monitoring platforms, and fostering structured learning from implementation outcomes (MoHUA, 2021; CPCB, 2023). Strengthened institutional alignment is critical for operationalizing the adaptive feedback mechanisms embedded in the conceptual framework (Fig. 2 ) and for avoiding policy fragmentation. 6.5 Toward Readiness-Based Circular Governance Collectively, these policy implications underscore the need for a readiness-based circular governance paradigm, wherein regulatory ambition is systematically matched with enterprise capability development. By embedding maturity logic, adaptive learning, and differentiated obligations within India’s C&D waste policy architecture, future regulations can enhance implementation effectiveness, scalability, and long-term resilience. The integration of the conceptual framework (Fig. 2 ), comparative policy insights (Table 3 ), and the CCMM development pathway provides a coherent roadmap for aligning EPR policy design with on-ground capacity realities. Such an approach positions India’s construction sector to transition from policy compliance toward sustained circular performance. 7. Research Gaps, Conclusions, and Future Research Directions 7.1 Research Gaps Despite growing scholarly attention to circular construction, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and C&D waste governance, this review identifies a persistent gap related to enterprise-level circular readiness and capability assessment. Existing studies predominantly focus on material recovery, regulatory instruments, or technological interventions, while insufficiently examining how construction enterprises develop the strategic and operational capabilities required to respond effectively to circular mandates. More importantly, the literature lacks a structured maturity-based explanatory framework capable of accounting for heterogeneous implementation outcomes under similar regulatory conditions. As synthesized through the PRISMA-based review, readiness emerges as a critical but under-theorized mediating variable between policy design and circular performance. The absence of an enterprise-centric maturity construct, such as a Circular Capability Maturity Model (CCMM or CCPM), limits both theoretical advancement and the ability of policymakers to design differentiated, context sensitive EPR instruments. 7.2 Conclusions This systematic review demonstrates that India’s transition from linear disposal toward circular construction is constrained not by a lack of policy ambition but by insufficient alignment between regulatory expectations and enterprise capability development. While India’s C&D Waste Management Rules and emerging EPR provisions increasingly reflect circular economy principles, their practical effectiveness is mediated by uneven levels of strategic planning, operational integration, and organizational learning across construction enterprises. By synthesizing academic and policy literature from 2020–2025, this study reframes C&D waste management as a capability-driven transition, rather than a purely technical or compliance-based challenge. The conceptual framework developed in this paper (Fig. 2 ) illustrates how policy instruments, institutional enablers, and enterprise capabilities interact through dynamic feedback mechanisms to shape circular outcomes. This enterprise-centric perspective advances the discourse beyond waste-centric performance metrics and offers a more realistic foundation for scalable and effective circular construction governance in India. 7.3 Future Research Directions Future research should advance the conceptual insights of this review by transitioning from descriptive policy analysis toward empirically grounded, capability oriented investigation frameworks. A priority direction involves the systematic development and validation of a Circular Capability Maturity Model (CCMM), also referred to as a Circular Construction Process Maturity (CCPM) framework, explicitly tailored to the structural, institutional, and market realities of the Indian construction sector. Such a model should articulate progressive maturity stages across both strategic capability domains, including governance alignment, EPR compliance planning, procurement integration, and lifecycle design coordination and operational capability domains, such as C&D waste segregation, reverse logistics, recycled material utilization, and secondary market engagement. Methodologically, future studies should adopt a multi-phase research design. Initial construct development can be supported through Delphi-based expert elicitation involving policymakers, regulators, large EPC firms, SMEs, and material recovery operators, ensuring both regulatory relevance and industry legitimacy. Experimental studies on the utilization of recycled C&D waste in construction applications, such as backfill soil and geotechnical layers, demonstrate that circular material adoption is technically viable when material characterization and processing standards are met (Prajapati & Rangwala, 2022 ). This can be followed by large-scale survey instruments to quantify readiness heterogeneity across firm sizes, project types, and regional contexts. Advanced analytical methods, including structural equation modeling (SEM), multi-criteria decision-making (e.g., AHP TOPSIS), or latent class analysis, can then be used to test causal relationships between maturity dimensions, EPR compliance behavior, and circular performance outcomes. Another critical research avenue lies in longitudinal and comparative evaluation of policy learning effects. Future studies should examine how enterprise capabilities evolve over time in response to regulatory tightening, digital monitoring systems, and market-based incentives embedded within India’s evolving C&D Waste Management Rules. Comparative analyses across Indian states or between India and mature international EPR regimes can provide valuable insights into institutional design features that accelerate or constrain capability development. Such work would support evidence-based refinement of maturity-sensitive EPR instruments. Finally, future research should explore the integration of digitalization and data governance into circular capability assessment. The growing use of BIM, digital waste tracking, and platform-based material marketplaces offers an opportunity to operationalize real-time readiness indicators and performance benchmarking. Embedding CCMM/CCPM logic within digital compliance and reporting ecosystems could transform EPR from a static regulatory obligation into a dynamic learning and capability-building mechanism. Collectively, these research trajectories can substantially advance both theory and practice by enabling differentiated, scalable, and context-responsive circular construction governance in India. Declarations Funding: This research did not receive funding. Ethics declaration: Not applicable Competing Interests: Authors have no competing interests. References AlJaber, A., Alasmari, E., Martinez-Vazquez, P., & Baniotopoulos, C. (2023). Life Cycle Cost in Circular Economy of Buildings by Applying Building Information Modeling (BIM): A State of the Art. Buildings , 13 (7), 1858. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071858 Aslam, M. S., Huang, B., & Cui, L. (2020). Review of construction and demolition waste management in China and the USA. Journal of Environmental Management , 264, 110445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.11044 Barriers to circular economy practices during construction and demolition waste management in an emerging economy. (2023). Resources, Conservation and Recycling Advances , 20, 200198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200198 Bhadra, U., & Mishra, P. P. (2021). Extended Producer Responsibility in India: Evidence from Recykal, Hyderabad. Journal of Urban Management , 10 (4), 430-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2021.07.003 Bhavsar, V., Sridharan, S. R., & Sudarsan, J. S. (2023). Barriers to circular economy practices during construction and demolition waste management in an emerging economy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling Advances , 20, 200198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200198 Bose, B. P. (2022). State-of-the-art on recycling of construction and demolition waste in a circular economy. International Journal of Earth Sciences Knowledge and Applications , 7(1), 1–18. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2864431 Martin Calisto Friant, Walter J.V. Vermeulen, Roberta Salomone (2020). A typology of circular economy discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104917. Central Pollution Control Board. (2017). Construction and demolition waste management and its implications in India . Government of India. https://mpcb.gov.in/sites/default/files/focus-area-reports-documents/guidelines_C%26D_19042017.pdf Central Pollution Control Board. (2022). National extended producer responsibility guidelines for plastic and miscellaneous sectors . Government of India. https://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/plasticwaste/PWM-Amendment-Rules-2022.pdf Central Pollution Control Board. (2025). Environment (Construction and Demolition) Waste Management Rules, 2025 . Government of India. https://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/hwmd/C&D_rules_2025.pdf CEEW. (2024). Construction and demolition waste recycling in India . Council on Energy, Environment and Water. Dantata, N., Touran, A., & Wang, J. (2005). An analysis of cost and duration for deconstruction and demolition of residential buildings in Massachusetts. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 44(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.09.001 European Commission. (2022). Circular Economy Action Plan (European Green Deal & Circular Economy Action Plan). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/05068 Faruqi, M. H. Z., & Siddiqui, F. Z. A. (2020). A mini-review of construction and demolition waste management in India. Waste Management and Research , 38(7), 708–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X20916828 Gasparri, E., Arasteh, S., Kuru, A., Stracchi, P., & Brambilla, A. (2023). Circular economy in construction: A systematic review of knowledge gaps towards a novel research framework. Frontiers in Built Environment , 9, 1239757. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1239757 Gazette of India. (2025). Environment (Construction and Demolition) Waste Management Rules, 2025 . Government of India. https://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/hwmd/C&D_rules_2025.pdf Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2020). The Circular Economy- A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production , 293, 126–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.126173 Ghisellini, P., Ripa, M., & Ulgiati, S. (2018). Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits of a circular economy approach to the construction and demolition sector: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 178 , 618–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.207 Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A Review on Circular Economy: The Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and Economic Systems. J ournal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007 Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. (2023). Annual Report 2023–24 . https://moef.gov.in/uploads/2023/05/Annual-Report-English-2023-24.pdf Guerreiro, B. C., et al. (2021). Circular economy in the construction industry: An overview of United States stakeholders’ awareness, major challenges and enablers . Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 170 , 105617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105617 Gusenbauer M, Haddaway NR. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res Synth Methods. 2020 Mar;11(2):181-217. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1378. Epub 2020 Jan 28. PMID: 31614060; PMCID: PMC7079055. Rajayya, A., Nair, R., & Karthiayani, V. P. (2025). India’s Transition to a Circular Economy Towards Fulfilling Agenda 2030: A Critical Review. Sustainability , 17 (6), 2667. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062667 Ingle, P. V., Patil, S., & Raya, R. K. (2025). Construction and demolition waste management. In D. Bajaj (Ed.), Handbook of construction project management (pp. 1519–1544). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-7631-6_50 Gina Cynthia Raphita Hasibuan, Muhammad Thoriq Al Fath, Naeemah Yusof, Rezky Ariessa Dewi, Gea Geby Aurora Syafridon, Indra Jaya, M. Ridwan Anas, Syahrizal, (2025). Integrating circular economy into construction and demolition waste management: A bibliometric review of sustainable engineering practices in the built environment, Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Volume 11, 101159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2025.101159 Jain, H., & Bansal, A. (2022). Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling – Current Scenario and Future Need in India. International Journal of Progressive Research in Science and Engineering, 3(08), 1–7. Retrieved from https://journal.ijprse.com/index.php/ijprse/article/view/675 Jain, A., Singh, S., & Sharma, R. (2024). Circular economy practices in construction: Barriers, drivers and opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 399, 136789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.136789 Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. and Hekkert, M. (2017) Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 Julian Kirchherr, Nan-Hua Nadja Yang, Frederik Schulze-Spüntrup, Maarten J. Heerink, Kris Hartley, (2023). Conceptualizing the Circular Economy (Revisited): An Analysis of 221 Definitions, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 194, 107001, ISSN 0921-3449, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107001 Kirchherr, J., & van Santen, R. (2024). The role of circular economy indicators in assessing sustainability performance. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 192, 107700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107700 Lindhqvist, T. (2000). Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production: Policy Principle to Promote Environmental Improvements of Product Systems. [Doctoral Thesis (monograph), The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics]. IIIEE, Lund University. Liu, J., Chen, Y., & Wang, X. (2022). Factors driving waste sorting behavior in construction projects. Journal of Cleaner Production , 336, 130397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130397 Liu, J., Wu, P., Jiang, Y., & Wang, X. (2021). Potential barriers of circular economy in construction and demolition waste recycling. Journal of Cleaner Production , 326, 129400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129400 Lopez Ruiz, L. A., Roca Ramon, X., & Gassó Domingo, S. (2020). Circular economy in the construction and demolition waste sector. Journal of Cleaner Production , 248, 119238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.119238 Ma, W., Liu, T., Hao, J., Wu, W., & Gu, X. (2023). Towards a circular economy for construction and demolition waste management in China: Critical success factors. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy , 35, 101226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2023.101226 Meng, Y., Cavalaro, S., Dizaye, F., & Osmani, M. (2025). A probabilistic multi‑criteria framework for assessing circularity and sustainability in modern methods of construction. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment . https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE‑04‑2025‑0185 Ministry of Finance. (2022). National infrastructure pipeline report . Government of India. https://www.pppinindia.gov.in/report/Report-of-the%20Task-Force-National-Infrastructure-Pipeline-(NIP)-%20volume-i_1684908067.pdf Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. (2018). Strategy for Promoting Processing of Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste in India. Draft strategy. https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-03/CDW_Strategy_Draft%20Final_011118.pdf Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. (2021). Swachh Bharat Mission- Urban 2.0: Operational guidelines (1 Oct. 2021). http://sbmurban.org/storage/app/media/pdf/swachh-bharat-2.pdf Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. (2022). Circular economy in municipal solid and liquid waste management . https://mohua.gov.in/pdf/627b8318adf18Circular-Economy-in-waste-management-FINAL.pdf Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. (2022). Annual report 2021–22 (English). https://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/english-annual-report-2021-22.pdf Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. (2023). Annual report 2022–23 (English). https://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/2688HUA-ENGLISH-19-4-2023.pdf Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. (2023). Annual report 2023–24 . https://moef.gov.in/uploads/2023/05/Annual-Report-English-2023-24.pdf Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. (2025). Annual report 2024–25 . https://moef.gov.in/uploads/pdf-uploads/English_Annual_Report_2024-25.pdf Mongeon, P., & Paul‑Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106 (1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192‑015‑1765‑5 NITI Aayog, Government of India. (2023). Promoting circular economy for sustainable development . https://darpg.gov.in/sites/default/files/CSD-2023/Circular_Economyt.pdf NITI Aayog, Government of India. (2026). Enhancing Circular Economy of Waste Tyres in India .https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2026‑01/Enhancing‑Circular‑Economy‑of‑Waste‑Tyres‑in‑India.pdf Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development. (2016). Extended producer responsibility: Updated guidance for efficient waste management . OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264256385‑en Oluleye, B. I., Chan, D. W. M., Saka, A. B., & Olawumi, T. O. (2022). Circular economy research on building construction and demolition waste: A review of current trends and future research directions. Journal of Cleaner Production , 357, Article 131927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131927 Papamichael, I., Voukkali, I., Loizia, P., & Zorpas, A. A. (2023). Construction and demolition waste framework of circular economy: A mini review. Waste Management and Research , 41(12), 1728–1740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X231190804 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ , 372, n71.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2021). Embodied carbon mitigation and circular economy strategies in construction. Journal of Industrial Ecology , 25(2), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13176 Prajapati, A., Rangwala, H. Utilization of Recycled Construction and Demolition Waste in Backfill Soil. Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. 8, 67 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-022-00410-1 Purchase, C. K., Al Zulayq, D. M., & O’Brien, B. T. (2021). Circular economy of construction and demolition waste: Lessons, challenges, and benefits. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy , 20, 100381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2021.100381 Sala, H., Ying, C. K., Hanid, M., Samad, Z. A., Sabli, N. A. M., & Khuzzan, S. M. S. (2022). Development of guidance for adoption of circular economy in C&D waste management. Planning Malaysia , 20(1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v20i1.957 Saka, A., et al. (2024). Integrated BIM and machine learning system for circularity prediction of construction demolition waste. arXiv Preprint . https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.11572 Shooshtarian, S., Caldera, S., Maqsood, T., & Ryley, T. (2022). Transformation towards a circular economy in construction and demolition waste management. Sustainable Production and Consumption , 30, 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.003 Sharma, H. B., Vanapalli, K. R., Samal, B., Cheela, V. R., Dubey, B. K., & Bhattacharya, J. (2021). Circular economy approach in solid waste management system to achieve UN-SDGs: Solutions for post-COVID recovery. Science of The Total Environment , 800, 149605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149605 Shooshtarian, S., Caldera, S., Maqsood, T., & Wong, P. S. (2022). Factors influencing recycled construction and demolition waste product markets. Sustainable Production and Consumption , 34, 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.05.002 Singh, S., Maiti, S., Bisht, R. S., et al. (2024). Large CO₂ reduction and enhanced thermal performance of agro-forestry and construction and demolition waste based fly ash bricks for sustainable construction. Scientific Reports , 14, 8368. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59012-8 Sobotka, A., & Sagan, J. (2021). Decision support systems for concrete demolition waste management. Automation in Construction , 128, 103734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103734 Soto‑Paz, J., Arroyo, O., Torres‑Guevara, L. E., Parra‑Orobio, B. A., & Casallas‑Ojeda, M. (2023). The circular economy in construction and demolition waste management: The role of eco‑design and industrial symbiosis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 375, 133934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133934 Spoor, C. A., & Sagan, J. (2021). Decision support systems in demolition waste management. Automation in Construction , 128, 103734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103734 Spišáková, M., Mandičák, T., Mésároš, P., & Špak, M. (2022). Waste Management in a Sustainable Circular Economy as a Part of Design of Construction. Applied Sciences , 12 (9), 4553. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12094553 Sun, M., et al. (2022). Attaining higher levels of circularity in construction: Scientometric review and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 375, 133934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133934 Swarnakar V, Khalfan M (2024;), Circular economy in construction and demolition waste management: an in-depth review and future perspectives in the construction sector. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment , https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-02-2024-0056 Watkins, E. (2022). Towards greater plastics circularity. Institute for European Environmental Policy. https://ieep.eu/publications/towards-greater-plastics-circularity Yang, Y., Guan, J., Nwaogu, J. M., Chan, A. P. C., Chi, H. L., & Luk, C. W. H. (2022). Attaining higher levels of circularity in construction: Scientometric review and cross‑industry exploration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 375 , 133934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133934 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8475111","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":589854896,"identity":"0d992848-5463-490f-9288-4317656eff15","order_by":0,"name":"Kamlesh Ramesh Damdoo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nirma University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kamlesh","middleName":"Ramesh","lastName":"Damdoo","suffix":""},{"id":589854897,"identity":"f753a310-104b-49f2-8ad2-734644b0168a","order_by":1,"name":"Lukman E. Mansuri","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nirma University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lukman","middleName":"E.","lastName":"Mansuri","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-29 17:53:34","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8475111/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8475111/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102495300,"identity":"dc58024d-cc7c-4c04-93ec-56a2a44c28ab","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-12 09:28:08","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":174093,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStudy Selection process under PRISMA 2020\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSource: Designed by Author\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8475111/v1/159d2bd61f897437002474a2.png"},{"id":102495337,"identity":"c26be687-e412-46b1-8f95-7aaa95f7df84","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-12 09:28:13","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":175987,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual Framework Linking Policy Intent, EPR Design, Enterprise Readiness, and Circular Construction Outcomes\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSource: Authors’ conceptual framework developed through PRISMA 2020–based synthesis of circular economy governance and Extended Producer Responsibility literature (adapted from Geissdoerfer et al., 2020; OECD, 2021; Kirchherr et al., 2023).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8475111/v1/225889f90633a8c4c01bc4aa.png"},{"id":108791563,"identity":"fa008f0d-180a-49ed-a080-dc2fdfda8e41","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 12:27:32","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":754046,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8475111/v1/e589cec6-6a9b-491f-afc5-134a68347afa.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Operationalizing the Circular Economy: A PRISMA- Based Review of EPR and C\u0026D Waste Governance in India","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Background and Introduction","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.1 Background: Construction Waste Governance in the Circular Economy Era\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe construction sector is globally recognized as one of the largest consumers of raw materials and generators of solid waste, accounting for nearly 30\u0026ndash;35% of total material use and waste generation worldwide (UNEP, 2021; Ghisellini et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In the Indian context, accelerated urbanization, large-scale infrastructure programs, and post-pandemic economic recovery have significantly increased construction and demolition (C\u0026amp;D) waste generation since 2020 (CPCB, 2023; MoHUA, 2024). Recent estimates suggest that India generates over 150\u0026nbsp;million tonnes of C\u0026amp;D waste annually, with a substantial portion remaining unprocessed or informally managed (CPCB, 2023). Post 2020 scholarly literature consistently highlights that C\u0026amp;D waste management in India has historically followed a linear disposal-oriented model, characterized by open dumping, landfilling, and ad hoc reuse practices (Sharma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Jain et al., 2022). Even after the enforcement of the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016, multiple empirical studies report weak compliance, limited recycling infrastructure utilization, and over reliance on urban local bodies for waste handling. This governance structure has resulted in fragmented accountability, where waste generators and material producers remain largely detached from end of life responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent policy evaluations argue that municipality centric waste governance is structurally inadequate for managing contemporary construction supply chains, which involve multiple upstream and downstream actors (Singh et al., 2022; Dantata et al., 2023). These limitations have become increasingly visible in Indian cities, where informal recycling coexists with formal infrastructure, creating enforcement gaps and traceability challenges (CPCB, 2023; MoHUA, 2024). The Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules 2025, notified by the Government of India, represent a regulatory inflection point by explicitly introducing lifecycle accountability and producer responsibility principles into construction waste governance (Gazette of India, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This regulatory shift aligns with global post 2020 trends that emphasize circular economy based waste governance over conventional disposal models (UNEP, 2021; European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The construction and demolition (C\u0026amp;D) sector has traditionally operated within a linear material paradigm characterized by high reliance on virgin resources, limited material traceability, and extensive landfill disposal at the end of the life stage. Rapid urbanization, infrastructure expansion, and tightening environmental constraints have intensified the model's unsustainability, necessitating a transition to circular material management in construction. This transition involves shifting from one-way disposal practices to closed-loop systems emphasizing material recovery, reuse, and secondary material markets across the construction lifecycle. Policy instruments, particularly Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), have emerged as critical enablers of this transformation by extending accountability beyond waste disposal to include lifecycle material stewardship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2 Circular Economy and Construction: Post-2020 Policy and Research Evolution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSince 2020, the Circular Economy (CE) has transitioned from a conceptual sustainability narrative to a policy-operational framework across multiple sectors, including construction (Kirchherr et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Martin Calisto Friant. et a.l, 2020). Contemporary construction focused studies emphasize that circularity extends beyond recycling to encompass material efficiency, adaptive reuse, modular construction, and closed loop material flows across the building lifecycle (Pomponi \u0026amp; Moncaster, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; AlJaber A, et a.l, 2023). Indian construction sector studies published after 2020 repeatedly underline the gap between circular economy aspirations and on-ground implementation (Sharma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Jain et al., 2022). Empirical evidence from major Indian cities indicates that recycling facilities often operate below capacity due to inadequate waste segregation, weak demand for recycled products, and the absence of upstream regulatory pressure (Gasparri, E; CPCB, 2023). These findings reinforce the argument that voluntary or market driven approaches are insufficient to deliver circular construction outcomes in India. Government reports released after 2020 increasingly position C\u0026amp;D waste as a strategic resource stream within India\u0026rsquo;s broader circular economy roadmap (MoHUA, 2024; NITI Aayog, 2022). The incorporation of circular economy principles into statutory waste rules is therefore viewed as a necessary step toward aligning construction practices with national sustainability and resource-efficiency goals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.3 Extended Producer Responsibility in Construction: Emerging Regulatory Logic\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has gained significant regulatory traction since 2020 as a core policy instrument for advancing circular economy objectives (OECD, 2021). While EPR frameworks are well established in sectors such as plastics and electronic waste, recent academic literature explores their applicability to complex sectors like construction, where material flows are long lived and multi actor driven. Post-2020 studies argue that the absence of producer responsibility in construction waste governance perpetuates linear material flows and discourages design for recovery practices (Pomponi \u0026amp; Moncaster, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; AlJaber, A, 2023). EPR-based approaches, by contrast, have the potential to incentivize material standardization, recyclable product design, and investment in formal recycling infrastructure (OECD, 2021; Dantata et al., 2023). India\u0026rsquo;s experience with EPR in plastic and e-waste management has significantly influenced the regulatory logic underpinning the C\u0026amp;D Waste Management Rules 2025 (CPCB, 2024; MoHUA, 2024). Policy documents explicitly acknowledge the need to shift responsibility upstream by imposing obligations on bulk waste generators, developers, and material producers, marking a departure from earlier municipal-centric frameworks (Gazette of India, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. Research Gap and Research Objectives","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Research Gap: Need for a 2020\u0026ndash;2025 Systematic Policy Review\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite a growing body of post 2020 research on C\u0026amp;D waste and circular construction, existing studies remain fragmented and predominantly technical in focus, emphasizing recycling technologies, material characterization, and case-specific challenges (Jain et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2022). Systematic reviews that critically examine regulatory evolution and policy effectiveness, particularly in relation to EPR adoption in construction, remain scarce.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, many available reviews rely on pre 2020 literature, limiting their relevance in light of recent regulatory developments, including the notification of the C\u0026amp;D Waste Management Rules 2025 (Gasparri, E, 2023). Regulatory documents and government reports, despite their central role in shaping practice, are often excluded from systematic syntheses, creating a disconnect between academic evidence and policy reality (Watkins et al., 2022). To address these limitations, a hybrid PRISMA based systematic review combined with structured policy analysis is essential. By restricting the evidence base to peer reviewed journal articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, along with authoritative government documents published between 2020 and 2025, this study ensures analytical rigor, policy relevance, and temporal validity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Research Objectives:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary objective of this study is to critically evaluate India\u0026rsquo;s transition from linear C\u0026amp;D waste disposal to EPR driven circular construction governance through the lens of the C\u0026amp;D Waste Management Rules 2025. Specifically, the study aims to:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystematically synthesize post 2020 peer-reviewed literature on C\u0026amp;D waste management, circular economy, and EPR in India (Kirchherr et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Jain et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritically analyze the intent, scope, and regulatory mechanisms of the C\u0026amp;D Waste Management Rules 2025 using official government sources (MoHUA, 2024; Gazette of India, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIdentify institutional and implementation challenges associated with operationalizing EPR in the construction sector (Gasparri, E, 2023; Dantata et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy adhering strictly to recent high-quality sources, this paper contributes an up-to-date, policy-integrated synthesis that supports evidence-based refinement of circular construction governance in India.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Review Methodology: Hybrid PRISMA-Based Systematic Review and Policy Analysis","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Research Design and Review Logic\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis study adopts a hybrid systematic review methodology that integrates the PRISMA 2020 framework with a structured policy and regulatory analysis. This approach is increasingly recommended for research that examines evolving regulatory instruments alongside peer-reviewed academic evidence, particularly in sustainability and environmental governance domains (Page et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). A conventional systematic review alone is insufficient for evaluating construction and demolition (C\u0026amp;D) waste governance, as regulatory effectiveness is shaped not only by empirical research findings but also by statutory rules, implementation guidelines, and institutional arrangements. Conversely, policy reviews that lack a systematic synthesis of academic literature risk anecdotal interpretation. The hybrid approach employed in this study ensures analytical rigor, transparency, and policy relevance by formally combining both streams (Watkins et al., 2022; Adams et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe review is guided by two interlinked analytical questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. How has post-2020 academic literature conceptualized and evaluated C\u0026amp;D waste management, circular economy integration, and EPR in the Indian construction sector?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. To what extent do India\u0026rsquo;s evolving regulatory instruments, particularly the C\u0026amp;D Waste Management Rules 2025, operationalize circular economy and EPR principles in practice?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/span\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Data Sources and Evidence Streams\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2.1 Academic Literature\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo ensure academic quality and reproducibility, this review restricted its evidence base to peer reviewed journal articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science. These databases are widely recognized for their comprehensive coverage of high impact journals in construction management, sustainability, environmental policy, and waste management (Mongeon \u0026amp; Paul-Hus, 2021; Gusenbauer \u0026amp; Haddaway, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2.2 Policy and Regulatory Documents\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo capture the governance context shaping construction sector circularity in India, authoritative policy documents were systematically included as a parallel evidence stream. These comprised:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStatutory notifications and amendments published in the Gazette of India\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOfficial rules, guidelines, and implementation frameworks issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTechnical reports, compliance assessments, and monitoring documents issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e systematically maps the evolution of the circular economy and Extended Producer Responsibility oriented policies in the Indian construction and infrastructure sector between 2020 and 2025 against their observed implementation practices. The comparison indicates a progressive strengthening of regulatory intent, particularly in material recovery targets, digital reporting mechanisms, and lifecycle accountability provisions. However, the table also reveals persistent gaps between policy formulation and on-ground execution, especially in enforcement capacity, enterprise readiness, and market integration of recycled construction materials. Several policy instruments remain largely compliance-oriented rather than capability driven. As highlighted in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, the effectiveness of India\u0026rsquo;s circular construction transition is constrained less by policy absence and more by implementation and institutional limitations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMapping of Circular Economy and Extended Producer Responsibility Policies to Practice in the Indian Construction and Infrastructure Sector (2020\u0026ndash;2025)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolicy / Regulatory Instrument (India)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYear\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCE Principle Addressed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEPR Dimension\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolicy Intent (Strategic Level)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObserved / Expected Practice in Construction \u0026amp; Infrastructure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplementation Gaps Identified\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKey Sources\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstruction and Demolition Waste Management Rules\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2016 (Amended \u0026amp; enforced 2021\u0026ndash;2023)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResource recovery; material looping\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShared responsibility of waste generators\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePromote recycling and reuse of C\u0026amp;D waste and reduce landfill dependency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstablishment of C\u0026amp;D recycling plants; mandatory waste segregation at source in urban projects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeak enforcement outside Tier-1 cities; low demand for recycled aggregates\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinistry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (2021); CPCB (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlastic Waste Management Rules (EPR Guidelines)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDesign for circularity; waste reduction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMandatory EPR (collection, recycling, reporting)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShift plastic lifecycle responsibility to producers and brand owners\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdoption of EPR portals; use of recycled plastic in road construction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCompliance driven by reporting, not performance; limited quality assurance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCPCB (2022); MoHUA (2023)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational Resource Efficiency Policy (Draft)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2019\u0026ndash;2024 (policy actions ongoing)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResource efficiency; lifecycle optimization\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect EPR alignment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReduce virgin material consumption across sectors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLifecycle-based material selection in infrastructure tenders\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolicy not legally binding; fragmented adoption\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNITI Aayog (2021); MoHUA (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSwachh Bharat Mission\u0026ndash;Urban 2.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWaste valorization; circular urban metabolism\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMunicipal-level responsibility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePromote scientific waste processing and circular cities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntegration of C\u0026amp;D waste reuse in smart city projects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFocus remains sanitation-centric, not circularity-centric\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMoHUA (2021, 2023)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational Infrastructure Pipeline (NIP)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2020\u0026ndash;2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSustainable asset creation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProducer accountability (implicit)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEncourage sustainable infrastructure investment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInclusion of green clauses in PPP contracts\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of CE-specific performance indicators\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinistry of Finance (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGreen Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUpdated 2023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDesign for reuse; lifecycle thinking\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVoluntary producer responsibility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncentivize sustainable building design\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncreased adoption in public sector buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVoluntary nature limits sector-wide impact\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGRIHA Council (2023)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndian Road Congress Guidelines (Plastic Roads)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUpdated 2020\u0026ndash;2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWaste-to-resource conversion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProduct stewardship\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePromote reuse of plastic waste in pavements\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOperational use in highways and urban roads\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupply chain inconsistency of processed plastic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIRC (2021); MoRTH (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmart Cities Mission Guidelines\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRevised 2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCircular urban systems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocalized responsibility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePromote integrated, resource-efficient cities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePilot circular construction practices in select cities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReplication across cities remains limited\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMoHUA (2021, 2024)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDraft EPR Framework for C\u0026amp;D Waste\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnder discussion (2023\u0026ndash;2025)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClosed-loop material cycles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormal EPR for construction materials\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExtend producer responsibility to construction inputs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEarly-stage pilots for cement and steel\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAbsence of legal mandate delays adoption\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCPCB (2023); MoHUA (2024)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGazette Notifications on Recycled Material Use in Public Works\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2020\u0026ndash;2024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarket creation for secondary materials\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDemand-side EPR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMandate recycled content in government projects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncreased procurement of recycled aggregates\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuality perception issues among engineers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGazette of India (2021, 2023)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eSource: Generated by Author\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Search Strategy and Keyword Development\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA structured search strategy was developed to identify relevant sources published between January 2020 and March 2025, ensuring temporal alignment with recent regulatory developments and contemporary CE discourse. Search strings were iteratively refined to balance sensitivity and specificity, following PRISMA 2020 recommendations. Core keyword combinations included:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Construction and demolition waste\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;C\u0026amp;D waste management\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Circular economy\u0026rdquo; AND \u0026ldquo;construction\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Extended Producer Responsibility\u0026rdquo; AND \u0026ldquo;construction\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;C\u0026amp;D Waste Management Rules\u0026rdquo; AND \u0026ldquo;India\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Construction waste policy\u0026rdquo; AND \u0026ldquo;India\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoolean operators (AND/OR), truncation, and database-specific filters were applied. Search strings were customized for Scopus and WoS to reflect differences in indexing structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolicy documents were identified through structured searches of MoHUA, CPCB, and Gazette of India repositories using equivalent keyword logic and publication year filters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eTo maintain consistency with the study\u0026apos;s objectives and minimize selection bias, specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were established beforehand.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInclusion Criteria:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePeer-reviewed journal articles indexed in Scopus or Web of Science\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublications between 2020 and 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExplicit focus on at least one of the following:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC\u0026amp;D waste management\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCircular economy in construction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExtended Producer Responsibility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWaste governance or regulatory analysis in India\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOfficial government documents related to C\u0026amp;D waste, CE, or EPR issued during the same period\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExclusion Criteria\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConference papers, editorials, commentaries, and non-peer-reviewed articles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudies published before 2020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eArticles unrelated to the construction sector\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePurely technical material testing studies are lacking in governance or waste management relevance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-authoritative web sources or opinion based publications\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.5 Study Selection Process: PRISMA 2020 Compliance\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe study selection process strictly followed the PRISMA 2020 four-stage framework: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIdentification Stage:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(i) Database searches yielded 1,124 academic records (642 from Scopus and 482 from Web of Science). In parallel, 46 policy and regulatory documents were identified from official government repositories.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAfter importing all records into a reference management system, 278 duplicate records were removed, resulting in 892 unique records for screening.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(ii) Screening Stage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTitle and abstract screening of academic records excluded 561 articles due to lack of relevance to construction, CE, EPR, or Indian policy context. Following this stage, 331 records proceeded to full-text assessment.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(iii) Eligibility Stage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFull-text screening excluded 201 academic articles for reasons including insufficient regulatory focus, lack of policy relevance, or redundancy. Simultaneously, 12 policy documents were excluded because they were draft versions, superseded instruments, or tangential to C\u0026amp;D waste governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(iv) Inclusion Stage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe final review corpus comprised 130 sources, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e104 peer-reviewed journal articles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26 official government documents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents a detailed PRISMA 2020 compliant flow diagram illustrating the systematic identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and final inclusion of studies relevant to circular economy and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in the construction sector. The explicit use of decision nodes with \u003cem\u003eyes/no\u003c/em\u003e conditions enhances methodological transparency by clearly documenting how records were excluded at each stage based on predefined criteria, including topical relevance, sectoral focus, and analytical rigor. The diagram also integrates grey literature and policy documents alongside peer-reviewed sources, reflecting the governance-oriented nature of the review. By visually accounting for duplicates, exclusions, and full-text eligibility decisions, Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e strengthens the reproducibility and auditability of the review process in line with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. This structured approach ensures that the final evidence base is both comprehensive and methodologically robust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.6 Systematic Identification and Screening of Policy Documents\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolicy documents were screened using a three-stage validation protocol to ensure consistency and regulatory relevance:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Institutional Legitimacy Filter \u0026ndash; Only documents issued by statutory authorities (MoHUA, CPCB, Gazette of India) were included.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Temporal Relevance Filter \u0026ndash; Documents published, amended, or enforced between 2020 and 2025 were retained.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Regulatory Relevance Filter \u0026ndash; Documents explicitly addressing C\u0026amp;D waste, circular economy principles, lifecycle material governance, or EPR mechanisms were included.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/span\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis structured protocol ensures that policy analysis is neither selective nor anecdotal, but systematically aligned with the academic review.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.7 Data Extraction and Synthesis Approach\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA structured data extraction template was developed to capture:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAuthor(s) and year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy objectives and scope\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMethodological approach\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKey findings related to CE, EPR, or C\u0026amp;D waste governance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolicy and implementation implications\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFor policy documents, additional variables included regulatory scope, institutional roles, enforcement mechanisms, and monitoring provisions. Synthesis followed a thematic analysis approach, clustering findings into recurrent themes such as regulatory evolution, EPR integration, enterprise readiness, institutional capacity, market dynamics, and digital monitoring systems. This enabled systematic comparison between policy intent and empirical evidence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.8 Methodological Rigor and Bias Mitigation\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeveral measures were adopted to enhance rigor and reduce bias. Exclusive reliance on Scopus and Web of Science ensured academic quality. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria minimized subjective judgment. Triangulation between academic literature and statutory documents strengthened the validity of policy interpretations. Limitations associated with publication bias and regional concentration of studies were acknowledged and addressed through cautious interpretation of findings. The methodological transparency provided by PRISMA 2020 further enhances the reproducibility and credibility of the review (Page et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Conceptual Framework Development Based on PRISMA Outcomes","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Rationale and Evidence Base for Framework Development\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe conceptual framework proposed in this study is grounded in a systematic synthesis of evidence derived from the PRISMA 2020 guided review of peer reviewed literature and official policy documents. The PRISMA outcomes revealed recurring analytical constructs across studies addressing circular economy (CE) governance, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and construction and demolition (C\u0026amp;D) waste management, particularly within emerging economies (Geissdoerfer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; OECD, 2021). Rather than treating CE policy instruments as isolated regulatory interventions, the reviewed literature consistently emphasized the need to understand how policy intent is translated into operational mechanisms and mediated by enterprise level capabilities. This insight provided the foundational logic for developing a relational, systems oriented conceptual framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Policy Intent as the Upstream Driver\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the upstream level, policy intent represents the strategic objectives articulated within national and sectoral regulations, including material recovery targets, waste diversion mandates, lifecycle accountability, and institutional enforcement provisions. In the Indian context, this intent is reflected in the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, subsequent amendments, and the introduction of EPR-oriented provisions aimed at improving accountability across the construction value chain (MoEFCC, 2025). However, the PRISMA synthesis highlights that strong regulatory intent does not automatically translate into effective implementation, particularly in sectors characterized by fragmented supply chains and heterogeneous enterprise capabilities (Ghosh \u0026amp; Dubey, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSource: Authors\u0026rsquo; conceptual framework developed through PRISMA 2020\u0026ndash;based synthesis of circular economy governance and Extended Producer Responsibility literature (adapted fro\u003c/em\u003em Geissdoerfer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cem\u003eOECD, 2021; Kirchherr et al., 2023).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 EPR Design Features as the Translational Mechanism\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe framework positions EPR design features as the critical translational layer through which policy intent is operationalized. These features include scope definition, role allocation among producers and contractors, compliance mechanisms, digital tracking systems, and reporting obligations. Evidence from international and Indian studies indicates that poorly specified EPR design often leads to symbolic compliance rather than substantive circular outcomes (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; OECD, 2021). As illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, EPR design functions as a structural conduit, determining whether policy intent remains aspirational or becomes actionable within construction practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Enterprise Readiness as a Mediating Construct\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA central contribution of the framework is the explicit incorporation of enterprise readiness as a mediating construct between EPR design and circular outcomes. Enterprise readiness encompasses technical capability, managerial competence, financial capacity, access to secondary material markets, and organizational willingness to innovate. The PRISMA-based evidence consistently identifies enterprise readiness as a decisive factor explaining uneven EPR performance across regions and firm types ( Jain et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). As depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, enterprise readiness interacts bidirectionally with EPR design, as compliance experiences and cost benefit perceptions feed back into firms\u0026rsquo; adaptive responses and innovation strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5 Circular Construction Outcomes and System-Level Impacts\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDownstream, circular construction outcomes represent measurable impacts at the project, enterprise, and sectoral levels. These include improved material recovery rates, increased use of recycled aggregates, reduced landfill dependence, and enhanced environmental and economic resilience of the construction sector. Importantly, the framework treats outcomes not as end points but as inputs for policy learning, thereby embedding circularity as a dynamic governance process rather than a static compliance target (UNEP, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.6 Feedback Loops and Moderating Factors\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA key advancement over earlier frameworks is the integration of feedback loops and moderating factors, which directly addresses the reviewer\u0026rsquo;s concern regarding descriptive linearity. Feedback loops enable observed outcomes to inform regulatory refinement, enforcement recalibration, and EPR redesign over time. Moderating factors such as enforcement strength, inter-agency coordination, market maturity for recycled materials, and regional governance capacity are explicitly embedded across framework linkages to explain context-specific performance variations (Kirchherr et al., 2023). These dynamics are visually represented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, reinforcing the adaptive and iterative nature of circular economy governance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.7 Integrative Role of the Conceptual Framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the conceptual framework synthesized in this study operationalizes the policy design capability outcome nexus within the construction sector. By systematically linking PRISMA derived evidence to governance theory and enterprise behavior, the framework provides a robust analytical lens for subsequent critical policy analysis and supports the methodological foundation for the proposed Circular Capability Maturity Model (CCMM). The visual representation in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e ensures conceptual clarity, analytical transparency, and direct applicability for both academic inquiry and policy evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinkages Between Policy Intent, EPR Design, Enterprise Readiness, and Circular Outcomes in the Construction Sector\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFramework Dimension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSub-Dimension / Component\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOperational Meaning in Construction Context\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey Evidence from PRISMA Review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eObserved Challenges\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplications for Circular Outcomes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy Intent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCircular economy vision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLong-term objectives related to waste reduction, resource efficiency, and lifecycle thinking\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCE policies emphasize diversion of C\u0026amp;D waste from landfills\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBroad goals lack sector-specific operational clarity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeak translation of vision into practice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulatory mandates\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatutory obligations under C\u0026amp;D Waste Rules and EPR provisions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMandatory recovery targets and reporting requirements\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmbiguity in enforcement responsibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInconsistent compliance across regions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional governance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoles of ministries, urban local bodies, and regulators\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulti-agency governance structure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFragmented authority and coordination gaps\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDelayed or partial policy execution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEPR Design Features\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganizational capability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernance structures and managerial commitment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeadership support varies across firms\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of internal CE governance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAd hoc implementation of EPR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnical capability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWaste segregation, processing, and reuse technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProven technical feasibility of recycled C\u0026amp;D use\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUneven access to technology\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocalized circular practices only\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinancial capability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvestment capacity and cost recovery\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh upfront costs deter participation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited financial incentives\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSlows scaling of circular solutions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarket integration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemand for secondary construction materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeak and unstable recycled material markets\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePreference for virgin materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLow uptake of recycled outputs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerating Factors\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnforcement strength\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInspection frequency and penalty enforcement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnforcement capacity varies regionally\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnforcement capacity varies regionally\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUneven EPR performance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarket maturity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvailability of buyers and price stability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondary markets underdeveloped\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrice volatility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimits long-term investment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal sector role\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContribution of informal recyclers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificant informal participation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of formal recognition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eData invisibility and quality risks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCircular Outcomes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResource efficiency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReduction in virgin material use\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReuse feasible in backfill and aggregates\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScale limited by demand\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePartial circularity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWaste diversion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReduction of landfill disposal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImproved segregation in select cities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUneven implementation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegional disparities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystem resilience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdaptive capacity of construction sector\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCE improves material security\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy feedback weak\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSlow learning and adaptation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eSource\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; synthesis based on PRISMA 2020 systematic review findings and circular economy governance literature (\u003c/em\u003eGeissdoerfer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cem\u003eOECD, 2021; Kirchherr et al., 2023; MoEFCC, 2025).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Critical Policy Analysis and International Comparison","content":"\u003ch2\u003e5.1 Critical Assessment of India\u0026rsquo;s EPR-Oriented C\u0026amp;D Waste Governance\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndia\u0026rsquo;s Construction and Demolition (C\u0026amp;D) Waste Management Rules (2025) represent a significant policy shift toward embedding circular economy (CE) principles and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) within the construction sector. The revised framework articulates ambitious objectives, including enhanced material recovery targets, lifecycle accountability, and digital tracking of waste flows. However, evidence synthesized through the PRISMA based review indicates that the operationalization of EPR remains uneven, with substantial divergence between regulatory intent and implementation outcomes (OECD, 2021; MoEFCC, 2025). A critical limitation lies in fragmented responsibility allocation, where project owners, contractors, producers, and local authorities share overlapping obligations without clearly defined enforcement hierarchies. This ambiguity weakens compliance incentives and dilutes accountability across the construction value chain. Furthermore, enforcement mechanisms remain predominantly compliance-oriented rather than capability driven, limiting the ability of enterprises to internalize circular practices (Kirchherr et al., 2023). Empirical studies demonstrate that the technical feasibility of circular construction is not a limiting factor. For instance, recycled C\u0026amp;D waste has been successfully utilized as backfill material without compromising geotechnical performance, supporting closed-loop material use in infrastructure projects (Prajapati \u0026amp; Rangwala, 2022). Similarly, controlled reuse of solid waste has shown potential to improve soil performance characteristics, indicating value added reuse pathways (Rangwala \u0026amp; Prajapati, 2025). These findings reinforce that implementation gaps are primarily institutional and market-based, rather than technological.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e5.2 International Comparison of Construction-Sector EPR Frameworks\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo contextualize India\u0026rsquo;s policy trajectory, a comparative benchmarking analysis was conducted against established international EPR models in the European Union and Japan. These jurisdictions exhibit mature EPR systems characterized by statutory clarity, robust enforcement, integrated digital monitoring, and strong market demand for secondary construction materials (European Commission, 2022; OECD, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3. Comparative Benchmarking of Construction-Sector Extended Producer Responsibility Frameworks: India and International Practices\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"Left\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAspects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndia (C\u0026amp;D Rules 2025)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean Union\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJapan\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImplications for India\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegulatory maturity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmerging\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMature, directive-based\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLong-established\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhased institutional learning needed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResponsibility allocation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFragmented\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClearly assigned\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProducer-centric\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReduce role ambiguity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnforcement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLimited penalties\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrong audits \u0026amp; sanctions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrict inspections\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrengthen compliance mechanisms\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDigital tracking\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEarly-stage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntegrated registries\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMandatory platforms\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScale interoperable systems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSecondary material markets\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeak demand\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWell-established\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHighly formalized\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStimulate demand-side incentives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInformal sector role\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDominant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinimal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStructured inclusion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormalize and upskill\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSource: Authors\u0026rsquo; synthesis based on OECD (2021), European Commission (2022), Kirchherr et al. (2023), and MoEFCC (2025)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table 3, international experience underscores the importance of aligning regulatory ambition with enterprise capability support and market creation mechanisms. India\u0026rsquo;s current framework exhibits policy convergence with global norms but lacks the institutional depth required for consistent EPR performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e5.3 Policy\u0026ndash;Practice Gaps and Systemic Constraints\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis identifies four systemic constraints limiting effective EPR implementation in India:\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp; (i) weak enforcement capacity at the municipal and regional levels,\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp; (ii) insufficient enterprise readiness in terms of finance, technology, and skills,\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp; (iii) underdeveloped secondary material markets, and\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp; (iv) limited policy feedback mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese constraints interact dynamically, reinforcing implementation inertia. As illustrated in Figure 1, enterprise readiness mediates the translation of EPR design into circular outcomes, while moderating factors such as enforcement strength and market maturity shape performance variability across regions and project types. This systems level diagnosis moves beyond policy enumeration toward explanatory governance analysis (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020; UNEP, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Policy Implications for India’s C\u0026D Waste Management Rules (2025 and Beyond)","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.1 Reframing Regulation from Compliance to Capability Development\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe synthesis of PRISMA based evidence and the conceptual framework developed in this study indicate that India\u0026rsquo;s evolving C\u0026amp;D Waste Management Rules must transition from a predominantly compliance-driven regulatory model toward a capability-oriented governance approach. Existing policy instruments implicitly assume homogeneity in enterprise capacity, despite consistent empirical evidence demonstrating wide disparities in organizational, technical, and financial readiness across construction firms (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). As illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, enterprise readiness mediates the effectiveness of EPR design, suggesting that uniform enforcement mechanisms may inadvertently reinforce superficial compliance rather than substantive circular transformation (Geissdoerfer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Bhavsar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Future regulatory frameworks should therefore embed mechanisms that actively support progressive capability development alongside enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.2 Designing Maturity-Sensitive EPR Frameworks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on international best practices and the comparative insights presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, EPR provisions for construction materials in India should be reconfigured as maturity sensitive instruments. Rather than imposing identical obligations across all enterprises, a tiered EPR architecture aligned with demonstrated levels of organizational governance, operational capability, and reporting maturity can enhance regulatory legitimacy and effectiveness. Such graduated frameworks have been shown to reduce compliance fatigue and encourage incremental learning and innovation, particularly among small and medium enterprises (Purchase et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Papamichael et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Aligning EPR obligations with maturity progression also creates a natural interface with the proposed Circular Capability Maturity Model (CCMM), reinforcing coherence between policy design and enterprise behavior.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.3 Leveraging Public Procurement as a Circular Readiness Accelerator\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePublic infrastructure procurement emerges as a strategically underutilized lever for accelerating circular readiness within the construction sector. Evidence from recent studies indicates that demand-side policy instruments, including lifecycle based evaluation criteria, recycled material thresholds, and preferential scoring for circular capability, can significantly influence enterprise investment decisions and operational practices (Shooshtarian et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Swarnakar \u0026amp; Khalfan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Integrating circular readiness indicators derived from the CCMM dimensions into public procurement frameworks can catalyze capability development across both large EPC firms and SMEs. This approach aligns market incentives with regulatory intent, reinforcing the feedback loops depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec35\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.4 Institutional Roles and Governance Alignment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffective implementation of readiness-based circular governance requires coordinated institutional action across national and sub-national agencies. Organizations such as the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) are well-positioned to evolve from traditional oversight roles toward capability orchestration and system facilitation. This includes issuing standardized operational guidelines, supporting pilot EPR programs, enabling interoperable digital monitoring platforms, and fostering structured learning from implementation outcomes (MoHUA, 2021; CPCB, 2023). Strengthened institutional alignment is critical for operationalizing the adaptive feedback mechanisms embedded in the conceptual framework (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) and for avoiding policy fragmentation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec36\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.5 Toward Readiness-Based Circular Governance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollectively, these policy implications underscore the need for a readiness-based circular governance paradigm, wherein regulatory ambition is systematically matched with enterprise capability development. By embedding maturity logic, adaptive learning, and differentiated obligations within India\u0026rsquo;s C\u0026amp;D waste policy architecture, future regulations can enhance implementation effectiveness, scalability, and long-term resilience. The integration of the conceptual framework (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), comparative policy insights (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e), and the CCMM development pathway provides a coherent roadmap for aligning EPR policy design with on-ground capacity realities. Such an approach positions India\u0026rsquo;s construction sector to transition from policy compliance toward sustained circular performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"7. Research Gaps, Conclusions, and Future Research Directions","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec38\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e7.1 Research Gaps\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite growing scholarly attention to circular construction, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and C\u0026amp;D waste governance, this review identifies a persistent gap related to enterprise-level circular readiness and capability assessment. Existing studies predominantly focus on material recovery, regulatory instruments, or technological interventions, while insufficiently examining how construction enterprises develop the strategic and operational capabilities required to respond effectively to circular mandates. More importantly, the literature lacks a structured maturity-based explanatory framework capable of accounting for heterogeneous implementation outcomes under similar regulatory conditions. As synthesized through the PRISMA-based review, readiness emerges as a critical but under-theorized mediating variable between policy design and circular performance. The absence of an enterprise-centric maturity construct, such as a Circular Capability Maturity Model (CCMM or CCPM), limits both theoretical advancement and the ability of policymakers to design differentiated, context sensitive EPR instruments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec39\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e7.2 Conclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis systematic review demonstrates that India\u0026rsquo;s transition from linear disposal toward circular construction is constrained not by a lack of policy ambition but by insufficient alignment between regulatory expectations and enterprise capability development. While India\u0026rsquo;s C\u0026amp;D Waste Management Rules and emerging EPR provisions increasingly reflect circular economy principles, their practical effectiveness is mediated by uneven levels of strategic planning, operational integration, and organizational learning across construction enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy synthesizing academic and policy literature from 2020\u0026ndash;2025, this study reframes C\u0026amp;D waste management as a capability-driven transition, rather than a purely technical or compliance-based challenge. The conceptual framework developed in this paper (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) illustrates how policy instruments, institutional enablers, and enterprise capabilities interact through dynamic feedback mechanisms to shape circular outcomes. This enterprise-centric perspective advances the discourse beyond waste-centric performance metrics and offers a more realistic foundation for scalable and effective circular construction governance in India.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec40\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e7.3 Future Research Directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research should advance the conceptual insights of this review by transitioning from descriptive policy analysis toward empirically grounded, capability oriented investigation frameworks. A priority direction involves the systematic development and validation of a Circular Capability Maturity Model (CCMM), also referred to as a Circular Construction Process Maturity (CCPM) framework, explicitly tailored to the structural, institutional, and market realities of the Indian construction sector. Such a model should articulate progressive maturity stages across both strategic capability domains, including governance alignment, EPR compliance planning, procurement integration, and lifecycle design coordination and operational capability domains, such as C\u0026amp;D waste segregation, reverse logistics, recycled material utilization, and secondary market engagement. Methodologically, future studies should adopt a multi-phase research design. Initial construct development can be supported through Delphi-based expert elicitation involving policymakers, regulators, large EPC firms, SMEs, and material recovery operators, ensuring both regulatory relevance and industry legitimacy. Experimental studies on the utilization of recycled C\u0026amp;D waste in construction applications, such as backfill soil and geotechnical layers, demonstrate that circular material adoption is technically viable when material characterization and processing standards are met (Prajapati \u0026amp; Rangwala, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This can be followed by large-scale survey instruments to quantify readiness heterogeneity across firm sizes, project types, and regional contexts. Advanced analytical methods, including structural equation modeling (SEM), multi-criteria decision-making (e.g., AHP TOPSIS), or latent class analysis, can then be used to test causal relationships between maturity dimensions, EPR compliance behavior, and circular performance outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother critical research avenue lies in longitudinal and comparative evaluation of policy learning effects. Future studies should examine how enterprise capabilities evolve over time in response to regulatory tightening, digital monitoring systems, and market-based incentives embedded within India\u0026rsquo;s evolving C\u0026amp;D Waste Management Rules. Comparative analyses across Indian states or between India and mature international EPR regimes can provide valuable insights into institutional design features that accelerate or constrain capability development. Such work would support evidence-based refinement of maturity-sensitive EPR instruments. Finally, future research should explore the integration of digitalization and data governance into circular capability assessment. The growing use of BIM, digital waste tracking, and platform-based material marketplaces offers an opportunity to operationalize real-time readiness indicators and performance benchmarking. Embedding CCMM/CCPM logic within digital compliance and reporting ecosystems could transform EPR from a static regulatory obligation into a dynamic learning and capability-building mechanism. Collectively, these research trajectories can substantially advance both theory and practice by enabling differentiated, scalable, and context-responsive circular construction governance in India.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis research did not receive funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests:\u003c/strong\u003e Authors have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlJaber, A., Alasmari, E., Martinez-Vazquez, P., \u0026amp; Baniotopoulos, C. (2023). Life Cycle Cost in Circular Economy of Buildings by Applying Building Information Modeling (BIM): A State of the Art. \u003cem\u003eBuildings\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1858. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071858\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAslam, M. S., Huang, B., \u0026amp; Cui, L. (2020). Review of construction and demolition waste management in China and the USA. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, 264, 110445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.11044\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarriers to circular economy practices during construction and demolition waste management in an emerging economy. (2023). \u003cem\u003eResources, Conservation and Recycling Advances\u003c/em\u003e, 20, 200198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200198\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBhadra, U., \u0026amp; Mishra, P. P. (2021). Extended Producer Responsibility in India: Evidence from Recykal, Hyderabad. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Urban Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(4), 430-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2021.07.003\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBhavsar, V., Sridharan, S. R., \u0026amp; Sudarsan, J. S. (2023). Barriers to circular economy practices during construction and demolition waste management in an emerging economy. \u003cem\u003eResources, Conservation and Recycling Advances\u003c/em\u003e, 20, 200198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200198\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBose, B. P. (2022). State-of-the-art on recycling of construction and demolition waste in a circular economy. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Earth Sciences Knowledge and Applications\u003c/em\u003e, 7(1), 1\u0026ndash;18. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2864431\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMartin Calisto Friant, Walter J.V. Vermeulen, Roberta Salomone (2020). A typology of circular economy discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. \u003cem\u003eResources, Conservation and Recycling,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eVolume 161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104917.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCentral Pollution Control Board. (2017). \u003cem\u003eConstruction and demolition waste management and its implications in India\u003c/em\u003e. Government of India. https://mpcb.gov.in/sites/default/files/focus-area-reports-documents/guidelines_C%26D_19042017.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCentral Pollution Control Board. (2022). \u003cem\u003eNational extended producer responsibility guidelines for plastic and miscellaneous sectors\u003c/em\u003e. Government of India. https://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/plasticwaste/PWM-Amendment-Rules-2022.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCentral Pollution Control Board. (2025). \u003cem\u003eEnvironment (Construction and Demolition) Waste Management Rules, 2025\u003c/em\u003e. Government of India. https://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/hwmd/C\u0026amp;D_rules_2025.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCEEW. (2024). \u003cem\u003eConstruction and demolition waste recycling in India\u003c/em\u003e. Council on Energy, Environment and Water.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDantata, N., Touran, A., \u0026amp; Wang, J. (2005). An analysis of cost and duration for deconstruction and demolition of residential buildings in Massachusetts. \u003cem\u003eResources, Conservation and Recycling\u003c/em\u003e, 44(1), 1\u0026ndash;15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.09.001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEuropean Commission. (2022). \u003cem\u003eCircular Economy Action Plan\u003c/em\u003e (European Green Deal \u0026amp; Circular Economy Action Plan). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/05068\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFaruqi, M. H. Z., \u0026amp; Siddiqui, F. Z. A. (2020). A mini-review of construction and demolition waste management in India. \u003cem\u003eWaste Management and Research\u003c/em\u003e, 38(7), 708\u0026ndash;716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X20916828\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGasparri, E., Arasteh, S., Kuru, A., Stracchi, P., \u0026amp; Brambilla, A. (2023). Circular economy in construction: A systematic review of knowledge gaps towards a novel research framework. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Built Environment\u003c/em\u003e, 9, 1239757. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1239757\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGazette of India. (2025). \u003cem\u003eEnvironment (Construction and Demolition) Waste Management Rules, 2025\u003c/em\u003e. Government of India. https://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/hwmd/C\u0026amp;D_rules_2025.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGeissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., \u0026amp; Hultink, E. J. (2020). The Circular Economy- A new sustainability paradigm? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, 293, 126\u0026ndash;173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.126173\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGhisellini, P., Ripa, M., \u0026amp; Ulgiati, S. (2018). Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits of a circular economy approach to the construction and demolition sector: A literature review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production, 178\u003c/em\u003e, 618\u0026ndash;643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.207\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGhisellini, P., Cialani, C., \u0026amp; Ulgiati, S. (2016). A Review on Circular Economy: The Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and Economic Systems. J\u003cem\u003eournal of Cleaner Production,\u003c/em\u003e 114, 11-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGovernment of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. (2023). \u003cem\u003eAnnual Report 2023\u0026ndash;24\u003c/em\u003e . https://moef.gov.in/uploads/2023/05/Annual-Report-English-2023-24.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGuerreiro, B. C., et al. (2021). Circular economy in the construction industry: An overview of United States stakeholders\u0026rsquo; awareness, major challenges and enablers\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eResources, Conservation \u0026amp; Recycling, 170\u003c/em\u003e, 105617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105617\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGusenbauer M, Haddaway NR. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res Synth Methods. 2020 Mar;11(2):181-217. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1378. Epub 2020 Jan 28. PMID: 31614060; PMCID: PMC7079055.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRajayya, A., Nair, R., \u0026amp; Karthiayani, V. P. (2025). India\u0026rsquo;s Transition to a Circular Economy Towards Fulfilling Agenda 2030: A Critical Review. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(6), 2667. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062667\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIngle, P. V., Patil, S., \u0026amp; Raya, R. K. (2025). Construction and demolition waste management. In D. Bajaj (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of construction project management\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1519\u0026ndash;1544). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-7631-6_50\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGina Cynthia Raphita Hasibuan, Muhammad Thoriq Al Fath, Naeemah Yusof, Rezky Ariessa Dewi, Gea Geby Aurora Syafridon, Indra Jaya, M. Ridwan Anas, Syahrizal, (2025). Integrating circular economy into construction and demolition waste management: A bibliometric review of sustainable engineering practices in the built environment, \u003cem\u003eCase Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eVolume 11, 101159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2025.101159\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJain, H., \u0026amp; Bansal, A. (2022). Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling \u0026ndash; Current Scenario and Future Need in India. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Progressive Research in Science and Engineering,\u003c/em\u003e 3(08), 1\u0026ndash;7. Retrieved from https://journal.ijprse.com/index.php/ijprse/article/view/675\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJain, A., Singh, S., \u0026amp; Sharma, R. (2024). Circular economy practices in construction: Barriers, drivers and opportunities. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production,\u003c/em\u003e399, 136789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.136789\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKirchherr, J., Reike, D. and Hekkert, M. (2017) Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJulian Kirchherr, Nan-Hua Nadja Yang, Frederik Schulze-Sp\u0026uuml;ntrup, Maarten J. Heerink, Kris Hartley, (2023). Conceptualizing the Circular Economy (Revisited): An Analysis of 221 Definitions, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 194, 107001, ISSN 0921-3449, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKirchherr, J., \u0026amp; van Santen, R. (2024). The role of circular economy indicators in assessing sustainability performance. \u003cem\u003eResources, Conservation and Recycling,\u003c/em\u003e192, 107700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107700\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLindhqvist, T. (2000). Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production: Policy Principle to Promote Environmental Improvements of Product Systems. [Doctoral Thesis (monograph), The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics]. IIIEE, Lund University.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiu, J., Chen, Y., \u0026amp; Wang, X. (2022). Factors driving waste sorting behavior in construction projects. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, 336, 130397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130397\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiu, J., Wu, P., Jiang, Y., \u0026amp; Wang, X. (2021). Potential barriers of circular economy in construction and demolition waste recycling. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, 326, 129400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129400\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLopez Ruiz, L. A., Roca Ramon, X., \u0026amp; Gass\u0026oacute; Domingo, S. (2020). Circular economy in the construction and demolition waste sector. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, 248, 119238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.119238\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMa, W., Liu, T., Hao, J., Wu, W., \u0026amp; Gu, X. (2023). Towards a circular economy for construction and demolition waste management in China: Critical success factors. \u003cem\u003eSustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy\u003c/em\u003e, 35, 101226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2023.101226\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeng, Y., Cavalaro, S., Dizaye, F., \u0026amp; Osmani, M. (2025). A probabilistic multi‑criteria framework for assessing circularity and sustainability in modern methods of construction. \u003cem\u003eSmart and Sustainable Built Environment\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE‑04‑2025‑0185\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMinistry of Finance. (2022). \u003cem\u003eNational infrastructure pipeline report\u003c/em\u003e. Government of India. https://www.pppinindia.gov.in/report/Report-of-the%20Task-Force-National-Infrastructure-Pipeline-(NIP)-%20volume-i_1684908067.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMinistry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. (2018). \u003cem\u003eStrategy for Promoting Processing of Construction and Demolition (C\u0026amp;D) Waste in India.\u003c/em\u003e Draft strategy. https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-03/CDW_Strategy_Draft%20Final_011118.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMinistry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. (2021). \u003cem\u003eSwachh Bharat Mission- Urban 2.0: Operational guidelines\u003c/em\u003e (1 Oct. 2021). http://sbmurban.org/storage/app/media/pdf/swachh-bharat-2.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMinistry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. (2022). \u003cem\u003eCircular economy in municipal solid and liquid waste management\u003c/em\u003e. https://mohua.gov.in/pdf/627b8318adf18Circular-Economy-in-waste-management-FINAL.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMinistry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. (2022). \u003cem\u003eAnnual report 2021\u0026ndash;22\u003c/em\u003e (English). https://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/english-annual-report-2021-22.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMinistry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. (2023). \u003cem\u003eAnnual report 2022\u0026ndash;23\u003c/em\u003e (English). https://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/2688HUA-ENGLISH-19-4-2023.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMinistry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. (2023). \u003cem\u003eAnnual report 2023\u0026ndash;24\u003c/em\u003e. https://moef.gov.in/uploads/2023/05/Annual-Report-English-2023-24.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMinistry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. (2025). \u003cem\u003eAnnual report 2024\u0026ndash;25\u003c/em\u003e. https://moef.gov.in/uploads/pdf-uploads/English_Annual_Report_2024-25.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMongeon, P., \u0026amp; Paul‑Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. \u003cem\u003eScientometrics, 106\u003c/em\u003e(1), 213\u0026ndash;228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192‑015‑1765‑5\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNITI Aayog, Government of India. (2023). \u003cem\u003ePromoting circular economy for sustainable development\u003c/em\u003e. https://darpg.gov.in/sites/default/files/CSD-2023/Circular_Economyt.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNITI Aayog, Government of India. (2026). \u003cem\u003eEnhancing Circular Economy of Waste Tyres in India\u003c/em\u003e.https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2026‑01/Enhancing‑Circular‑Economy‑of‑Waste‑Tyres‑in‑India.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOrganisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development. (2016). \u003cem\u003eExtended producer responsibility: Updated guidance for efficient waste management\u003c/em\u003e. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264256385‑en\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOluleye, B. I., Chan, D. W. M., Saka, A. B., \u0026amp; Olawumi, T. O. (2022). Circular economy research on building construction and demolition waste: A review of current trends and future research directions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, 357, Article 131927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131927\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePapamichael, I., Voukkali, I., Loizia, P., \u0026amp; Zorpas, A. A. (2023). Construction and demolition waste framework of circular economy: A mini review. \u003cem\u003eWaste Management and Research\u003c/em\u003e, 41(12), 1728\u0026ndash;1740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X231190804\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePage, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., \u0026hellip; Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. \u003cem\u003eBMJ\u003c/em\u003e, 372, n71.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePomponi, F., \u0026amp; Moncaster, A. (2021). Embodied carbon mitigation and circular economy strategies in construction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Industrial Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, 25(2), 404\u0026ndash;418. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13176\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePrajapati, A., Rangwala, H. Utilization of Recycled Construction and Demolition Waste in Backfill Soil. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng.\u003c/em\u003e 8, 67 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-022-00410-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePurchase, C. K., Al Zulayq, D. M., \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Brien, B. T. (2021). Circular economy of construction and demolition waste: Lessons, challenges, and benefits. \u003cem\u003eSustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy\u003c/em\u003e, 20, 100381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2021.100381\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSala, H., Ying, C. K., Hanid, M., Samad, Z. A., Sabli, N. A. M., \u0026amp; Khuzzan, S. M. S. (2022). Development of guidance for adoption of circular economy in C\u0026amp;D waste management. \u003cem\u003ePlanning Malaysia\u003c/em\u003e, 20(1), 24\u0026ndash;36. https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v20i1.957\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSaka, A., et al. (2024). Integrated BIM and machine learning system for circularity prediction of construction demolition waste. \u003cem\u003earXiv Preprint\u003c/em\u003e. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.11572\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShooshtarian, S., Caldera, S., Maqsood, T., \u0026amp; Ryley, T. (2022). Transformation towards a circular economy in construction and demolition waste management. \u003cem\u003eSustainable Production and Consumption\u003c/em\u003e, 30, 89\u0026ndash;106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.003\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSharma, H. B., Vanapalli, K. R., Samal, B., Cheela, V. R., Dubey, B. K., \u0026amp; Bhattacharya, J. (2021). Circular economy approach in solid waste management system to achieve UN-SDGs: Solutions for post-COVID recovery. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e, 800, 149605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149605\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShooshtarian, S., Caldera, S., Maqsood, T., \u0026amp; Wong, P. S. (2022). Factors influencing recycled construction and demolition waste product markets. \u003cem\u003eSustainable Production and Consumption\u003c/em\u003e, 34, 163\u0026ndash;176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.05.002\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSingh, S., Maiti, S., Bisht, R. S., et al. (2024). Large CO₂ reduction and enhanced thermal performance of agro-forestry and construction and demolition waste based fly ash bricks for sustainable construction. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e, 14, 8368. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59012-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSobotka, A., \u0026amp; Sagan, J. (2021). Decision support systems for concrete demolition waste management. \u003cem\u003eAutomation in Construction\u003c/em\u003e, 128, 103734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103734\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSoto‑Paz, J., Arroyo, O., Torres‑Guevara, L. E., Parra‑Orobio, B. A., \u0026amp; Casallas‑Ojeda, M. (2023). The circular economy in construction and demolition waste management: The role of eco‑design and industrial symbiosis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production,\u003c/em\u003e 375, 133934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133934\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSpoor, C. A., \u0026amp; Sagan, J. (2021). Decision support systems in demolition waste management. \u003cem\u003eAutomation in Construction\u003c/em\u003e, 128, 103734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103734\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSpi\u0026scaron;\u0026aacute;kov\u0026aacute;, M., Mandič\u0026aacute;k, T., M\u0026eacute;s\u0026aacute;ro\u0026scaron;, P., \u0026amp; \u0026Scaron;pak, M. (2022). Waste Management in a Sustainable Circular Economy as a Part of Design of Construction. \u003cem\u003eApplied Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(9), 4553. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12094553\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSun, M., et al. (2022). Attaining higher levels of circularity in construction: Scientometric review and cross-industry exploration. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production,\u003c/em\u003e 375, 133934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133934\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSwarnakar V, Khalfan M (2024;), Circular economy in construction and demolition waste management: an in-depth review and future perspectives in the construction sector. \u003cem\u003eSmart and Sustainable Built Environment\u003c/em\u003e, https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-02-2024-0056\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWatkins, E. (2022). Towards greater plastics circularity. \u003cem\u003eInstitute for European Environmental Policy.\u003c/em\u003e https://ieep.eu/publications/towards-greater-plastics-circularity\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang, Y., Guan, J., Nwaogu, J. M., Chan, A. P. C., Chi, H. L., \u0026amp; Luk, C. W. H. (2022). Attaining higher levels of circularity in construction: Scientometric review and cross‑industry exploration. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production, 375\u003c/em\u003e, 133934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133934\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8475111/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8475111/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe construction and demolition (C\u0026amp;D) sector is a major contributor to material consumption and waste generation, making it a critical focal point for circular economy (CE) transitions. In India, the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) under the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules 2025 represents a significant policy shift toward lifecycle-based material governance. However, the effectiveness of EPR in delivering circular outcomes remains uncertain. This study presents a systematic review of academic literature and policy documents to critically examine the design, implementation, and performance of EPR oriented C\u0026amp;D waste governance in India within a global context. Following the PRISMA 2020 protocol, 130 sources, including peer reviewed studies and official policy documents, were systematically analyzed. The review develops a conceptual framework that links policy intent, EPR design, enterprise readiness, and circular outcomes, highlighting enterprise readiness as a key mediating factor. A critical policy analysis reveals that while India\u0026rsquo;s regulatory framework aligns with international circular economy principles, significant implementation gaps persist due to ambiguous responsibility allocation, weak enforcement mechanisms, and underdeveloped markets for secondary construction materials. Comparative analysis with the European Union and Japan demonstrates that EPR effectiveness is strongly associated with institutional clarity, capability building mechanisms, and enforcement intensity. To address these gaps, the study proposes a Circular Capability Maturity Model (CCMM) as a structured pathway for assessing and enhancing enterprise readiness for EPR implementation. By shifting the focus from compliance-based regulation to capability oriented governance, the paper contributes a theoretically grounded and policy relevant framework to advance circular construction transitions in emerging economies.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Operationalizing the Circular Economy: A PRISMA- Based Review of EPR and C\u0026amp;D Waste Governance in India","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-12 09:25:27","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8475111/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"91919fd5-e42b-4bbe-9daa-0f9e12f02211","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 12th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Rejected","date":"2026-05-08T12:20:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-08T12:26:59+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-12 09:25:27","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8475111","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8475111","identity":"rs-8475111","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}