Information Sharing Barriers of Construction Projects Toward Circular Economy: Review and Framework Development

Abstract

The construction industry is transitioning towards the circular economy, an approach that effectively reduces the industry’s environmental impact and promotes sustainability. However, realising the circular economy goal requires adequate information sharing among stakeholders and across the building lifecycle stages. This research examines the barriers that impede the information-sharing process in construction projects for the circular economy. This research adopts the framework of the information-sharing process, which suggests four essential components: context, content, people, and media. This study systematically searches and analyses the literature to identify and classify the information sharing barriers in the circular economy context, as well as their interaction. This study also conducts a case study to validate the information barrier framework and the findings. The findings suggest that information barriers are interlinked and require comprehensive solutions from the aspects of technology, organisation, and people, instead of single-aspect solutions. As this study provides insights into the systemic complexities of how information flows within the circular economy implementation system, it consequently contributes to the improvement of sustainable construction practices.

1. Introduction

The circular economy has received considerable attention for its ability to reduce environmental impacts, minimise waste generation, and promote the efficient use of resources across building lifecycles in the construction industry [1]. With the adoption of the 4R strategies (reduction, reuse, recycling, and recover), the circular economy aims to maximise the material and component value so as to promote the sustainability of current and future buildings [2]. The application of 4R strategies requires adequate and accurate information to realise customisation planning and material traceability in accordance with the circular economy requirements [3]. Therefore, although the circular economy offers significant opportunities for sustainable development, the actual practice of the circular economy is limited due to persistent information sharing challenges [4]. Information sharing is a key enabler to promote the circular economy because it can ensure information flow, including material origin, condition, and recyclability, between different stakeholders across multiple stages of the building lifecycle [5]. However, the current practices have the issues of fragmented communication, unstandardised data formats, and isolated information platforms, which obstruct the necessary information flow for the success of circular construction projects [6].

Current research has explored many technical tools to advance the realisation of circular economy concepts, including building information modelling (BIM) applications, material passports, and cloud platforms [7]. However, these information technology (IT) tools still fall short of meeting the practice needs due to a lack of capability in many aspects. One limitation of these tools is their inability to address persistent barriers to effective information sharing [8]. Notably, few studies have paid attention to how information sharing barriers impact construction practices across different lifecycle stages and among various stakeholders [8]. Furthermore, the integration of the circular economy (CE) principles introduces new complexities into the construction process, which could disturb the current information-sharing process and cause coordination problems [9].

This research aims to bridge these gaps by identifying and analysing the important information sharing barriers in circular buildings. This research adopts a process-based framework, which includes context, content, people, and media, to comprehensively present the barriers and their impacts. After a systematic review of the published works and in-depth case studies, this research will seek to provide strong insights into the multifaceted nature of these barriers. These insights demonstrate the theoretical contribution of conceptualising barrier interdependencies in a general circular practice context, rather than treating them as isolated or generic issues. The framework provides a theoretical foundation for future refinement by considering other specific factors, like project scale and cultural variation.

This paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 reviews the relevant literature on the circular economy in construction, information-sharing processes, and theories of information barriers. Section 3 introduces the research methodology, including a literature analysis and a case study approach. Section 4 presents a detailed examination of the identified barriers. Section 5 discusses the case study findings and their implications for the proposed framework. Section 6 and Section 7 conclude with a discussion of practical solutions and strategic recommendations for improving information sharing in circular construction contexts.

2. Background

2.1. Circular Economy in Construction

The construction industry has already paved the way for sustainable development by adopting sustainable practices within the circular economy (CE). The CE aims to extract or recover the maximum value of the material and components near build’s end-of-life stage [10]. Unlike the conventional linear approach characterised by cradle-to-grave, circular architecture advocates a cradle-to-cradle principle [11]. Circularity encourages resource-efficient practices by extending the lifespan of materials and reducing the reliance on virgin resources, while simultaneously adding economic value [12].

Some of the key concepts of the CE are the 4R strategies, namely reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover, which signify strategic interventions conducted across building lifecycles [3]. These strategies are implemented across all building life stages and require foresight for the best realisation in implementation. The reduce strategy refers to reducing the impact of building and material consumption by designing for efficiency and adopting low-carbon materials [13]. Reuse is designed to reintegrate components into other structural or non-structural products [14]. Recycling requires processing materials with relatively low inputs of additional energy or raw materials to obtain residual monetary value through reselling in the market [15].

As the circular economy promotes business models and practices that differ from those of traditional construction projects, its unique characteristics affect the information-sharing process and other aspects. The key characteristics are summarised in

Table 1. Comparison between traditional and circular construction projects.

	Traditional Construction Project	Circular Construction Project
Project aim	Manage end of lifecycle independently	Lifecycle thinking with early-lifecycle-stage intervention
	Extract the high-value material	Extract maximum resources with system thinking
Project planning	Action at the end-of-life stage	Design for Disassembly to achieve the circular aim
	Mainly planned by the demolishing contractor independently	Extended Stakeholder Involvement
Project execution	Without consideration of maintaining the material value	Precise, specific disassembly order to extract material in good condition
	Extract from the waste stream after demolition	Extract during the planned demolition
	Independent stage management	Material traceability

. It highlights the critical differences arising from changes of the objectives of projects, the planning approach, the executing methods, and stakeholder participation. In the traditional projects, the termination phases are nearly always managed separately, often in terms of limited material recovery programs [16].

For example, these project stakeholders adopt lifecycle thinking from the very early stages and can purposefully design for disassembly with maximum resource retention [17]. This would result in wider collaboration across the full timeline, extended participation of stakeholders, and an emphasis on traceability and material condition. These properties create quite complex and often novel information demands and interdependencies not typically encountered in any traditional project model [18]. Given these characteristics, circular structures are likely to require a relatively more dynamic and coordinated process of information sharing among actors and across lifecycle phases.

2.2. Information Sharing as a Process

For the circular economy, sharing information is crucial to managing the dynamic and iterative nature of circular processes [4]. For example, reuse and recycling call for decisions to be made not just at the beginning or end of projects, but during each lifecycle phase of the project [3]. Monitoring material histories, coordinating partnerships across entities and timelines, and updating information according to real-time developments are part of a circular project’s additional information workflows [19,20]. Circular projects require flexible information flows and are different from linear construction types, where information may be phase-specific [21]. Without successful information sharing, the realisation of circular objectives such as maximising the value of materials becomes unattainable.

A major trend in the literature recently depicts the turn to BIM and/or digital twins in favour of CE-oriented decision making [2]. These tools are increasingly recognised for their capability to track material properties, enhance data continuity, and promote stakeholder collaboration [22]. Challenges have also been reported, including a lack of interoperability related to data sharing, unwillingness to share proprietary data, and inconsistent application of tools from phase to phase [23]. In construction under the CE, information sharing needs to be adaptable to the ever-changing needs of each lifecycle phase. Early-stage design, for instance, requires foresight and data to support material selection for reuse or recycling [24]. On the contrary, end of life planning requires detailed as-built construction data for effective disassembly [25]. This temporal variability suggests the need for a barrier-related mapping framework.

Understanding the process of information sharing is crucial for knowing how it assists the circular economy (CE) strategies in practical implementation at a construction site. Whereas the traditional view considers information exchange as an isolated and linear activity, the CE strategies require continuous, dynamic flow across multiple stages of the building lifecycle and among various stakeholders [15]. This perspective reflects the systemic and long-term nature of the CE, where decisions made in the early stages have implications across the lifecycle stages [26]. Recent studies conceptualise information sharing as an integrated socio-technical process that focuses on four basic elements: context, content, people, and media (Figure 1) [27]. The combined state of these four elements determines how well information flows:

• Context refers to the project-specific environment, including the CE strategy adopted and lifecycle stage alignment among stakeholders.
• Content includes the specific data types required, such as material origin, component life, recyclability, and deconstruction plans.
• People speak to the actors involved in sharing and interpreting information (designers, contractors, manufacturers, and end-of-life operators).
• The media include the tools and platforms (e.g., BIM, digital twins, and cloud platforms) through which information is exchanged and stored.

2.3. Conceptual Foundations of Information Barriers

Proper acknowledgment of information barriers is essential for better information management in circular building projects. Fundamentally, barrier investigation is useful for understanding the reasons why information, once formed, becomes a potential cause for project failure [28]. The barriers are also significant in a CE environment as information flow is dynamic and complex. The literature has increasingly emphasised the socio-technical perspective of information-sharing processes, rather than simply considering them as information transfer [29]. In CE projects, this becomes even more complex with the introduction of lifecycle coordination, non-traditional workflows (e.g., design for disassembly), and diverse actors [5]. The theoretical debate is moving from technology determinism in exploring barriers to a multilevel framework, considering systemic, procedural, and cultural perspectives [30]. Nevertheless, the emphasis is increasingly put on trust and interoperability issues, especially within the realm of digital tools like BIM, Internet of Things (IoT), and material passports [3,17]. Various research frameworks have been developed to categorise and study the barriers concerning information sharing.

Various studies have identified some barriers that are common to all these dimensions. Some examples of technical barriers include poor interoperability between systems, outdated tools, and the absence of any shared digital platform [31]. Respectively, those in the organisational dimension may include unclear authorities, lack of standardisation, and disjointed project architectural structure [32]. The barriers in the people dimension include problems with knowledge and awareness of climate engineering practices, or even detachment among stakeholders. Some examples of practical barriers in the CE include incompatibility of tools used by designers and contractors, incomplete lifecycle data records, unwillingness to share proprietary material information, and limited communication among disciplines like architecture and demolition planning [2].

Although the existing literature has explored various aspects, the literature lacks a comprehensive framework to address the interrelated nature of information barriers. Many studies focus on studying the technical challenges in isolation, such as BIM applications and IoT adoption [33]. Other research trends address stakeholder issues without integrating the technological and procedural dimensions [34]. Moreover, few studies try to explore how those barriers impact the novel circular economy principles and intensified information demands. Although several reviews exist within the CE domain, they often focus on circular economy implementation practice, such as material efficiency, waste reduction strategies, and digital innovation [35,36]. These limitations need to be addressed to overcome information-related obstacles in real-world CE construction projects. Therefore, this research suggests that a specific knowledge gap lies in the lack of an integrated perspective that bridges the CE lifecycle focus with information sharing complexity. To address this gap, this study proposes a process-based information sharing framework to analyse the barriers. This research helps to offer a more holistic understanding of how context, content, people, and media interact to affect information flows in circular construction.

3. Methodology

A systematic review of the literature was conducted to present a rich understanding of the barriers to information sharing in circular construction projects. The detailed process is presented in Figure 2. The search was carried out based on the following criteria:

• Search Keywords: To capture the interdisciplinary essence of the subject, three keyword sets were identified, including “circular economy”, “building OR the built environment”, and “information sharing”. “Circular economy” was included as the core focus and essential context of this study; “building OR the built environment” was selected to ensure relevance to the construction-specific context. “Information sharing” was selected to ensure the literature focused on communication, data exchange, and information flow, which is central to this study’s research questions. This combination could ensure the relevance of the literature and exclude a high number of irrelevant articles.
• Time Range: This study selects literature published in the last decade to capture recent developments and emerging trends in the circular economy.
• Document Type: Focus was given only to peer-reviewed journal articles to maintain academic rigour and methodological consistency.
• Databases: Web of Science and ScienceDirect were used for the literature search. Web of Science and ScienceDirect were selected as the primary databases for this study due to their high quality and broad coverage of peer-reviewed publications. Web of Science is highly recognised for its rigorous indexing and citation tracking capabilities [34]. ScienceDirect provides extensive coverage of technical and applied research, especially in engineering, environmental sciences, and construction management [37]. Several review papers in the related fields, such as the circular economy and knowledge management, have also used these two databases for their studies [38,39,40]. Together, these two databases set a comprehensive and solid foundation for the literature search.

In total, 342 academic papers were initially retrieved. A multi-stage screening process was implemented to refine the literature search further. Duplicate records and irrelevant papers were removed based on title and abstract reading, resulting in a shortlist of 138 articles. Full-text reviews were conducted to evaluate the relevance of the paper. Articles that addressed CE strategies without reference to information sharing, stakeholder collaboration, or digital platform implementation were excluded. Specifically, articles were selected for further research if they addressed circular economy (CE) strategies and at least one of the following essential elements related to information flow in CE-driven projects: (1) information technologies that facilitate data sharing, such as digital platforms and tools; (2) information exchange mechanisms; and (3) stakeholder collaboration and coordination. Exclusion criteria were also adopted for the selection process. Articles were excluded if they only addressed the implementation of the circular economy without addressing how information is shared among stakeholders or across lifecycle stages. Articles were excluded if they mainly addressed the following topics: material innovation, carbon footprint reduction, economic assessments, and digital tool implementation without CE implementation.

The remaining studies were assessed for thematic relevance and categorised according to their focus on one or more components of the information-sharing process framework—context, content, people, and media. A coding schema was developed to classify the literature based on their alignment with specific CE strategies (e.g., reuse, recycle, and recover) and the circular economy characteristics they addressed. To ensure the validity of terms, the barrier labels used in this study were developed using an interpretive thematic coding process, as shown in Figure 3. This study first applied an open coding approach to identify descriptive phrases or implicit problem statements from each article and obtained 432 descriptive notes. For example, the phrase “designers lacked access to demolition reports” was coded as “data silo across lifecycle stages” and represented a barrier in the content category; “contractors refused to use shared platforms” was coded as “trust and IP barrier” and represented a barrier in the media category. The coding term was summarised based on recurrent ideas, patterns, and problem descriptions to obtain an initial 109 codes. The author recorded barriers that were either explicitly mentioned or inferred from each piece of literature. These recorded labels were then grouped into conceptual clusters with 35 codes, where semantically or functionally similar issues were merged under a unified barrier label. For instance, “poorly maintained records,” “outdated blueprints,” and “missing asset information” were merged into the label “legacy data gaps.” Similarly, “lack of awareness about CE tools” and “limited understanding of reuse protocols” were grouped into “knowledge gaps.” These terms were designed to capture the essential challenges of information sharing across multiple sources. During the clustering process, this study encountered some difficulties, particularly with vague or overlapping terminology. For example, certain issues appear vague because they may be classified as either technical limitations (media) or stakeholder proficiency challenges (people), especially when implementing innovative digital platform. In such cases, the barriers were provisionally coded in both the categories and revisited during framework alignment. The final list of 15 barriers was iteratively refined and cross-checked to ensure alignment with the information-sharing process framework. The extracted information sharing barriers are presented as the analysis results in Section 4.

A case study approach was adopted to complement the literature review by providing empirical grounding for the information sharing barrier framework from actual construction practices [41]. The case study is a well-established method for investigating complex, real-world phenomena and is suitable for exploring interdependent technical, organisational, and social aspects of information sharing in circular construction projects [42]. This case study enables this study to examine information flow dynamics, stakeholder interactions, and project-specific challenges that cannot be fully captured in the literature alone [43]. The case centred on retrofitting several owner-specified areas, including the street-facing facade of an existing building. The owner presented an interest in minimal interventions and the reuse of materials, which fit the goal of the circular economy. These specific focuses set conditions that closely align with the circular economy principles, and the involvement of multiple stakeholders presents a complex scenario for information sharing and coordination. However, the project encountered several mistakes during the repair and replacement of critical infrastructure, caused by information-sharing barriers related to the location of critical infrastructural service systems. Although a single project was selected for the case study, this case is notable for its typicality among CE-oriented construction projects, where limited documentation, stakeholder misalignment, and material recovery ambitions often collide. Furthermore, this case was selected not only due to the consideration of CE objectives, such as material reuse and minimal intervention, but also because this case represents a typical conflict between CE objectives and legacy practices. Rather than presenting the best practices for circular economy implementation, this case shows how circular objectives often become compromised in execution. The project presents some typical and recurring gaps between CE planning and execution realities from the perspective of information sharing. The failure in this case is not about adequate technical expertise or an unrealistic ambition, but particularly about insufficient information-sharing structures. Information sharing barriers play a significant part in hindering the implementation of the circular economy practices, which is illustrative of this study’s focus. In line with the established case study methodology [42], this case is considered typical, rather than an extreme case, which was selected for its capability to illuminate the commonly encountered challenges in the CE context. Therefore, this case offers a rich empirical setting to explore the knowledge gaps of interconnected information sharing barriers in practice. While the findings may not be statistically significant, this case has significant value in supporting analytical generalisation by illustrating the critical challenges likely to be encountered.

Qualitative information on the case study was secured by conducting interviews with key stakeholders in a semi-structured interview format: three of the owner’s representatives, three of the contractor’s builders, and two of the designers. Other information was also included, such as a review of project documentation (e.g., plans, reports, and site memos) and direct observation of the information exchange process. The case was analysed using a deductive coding approach, mapping events and communication breakdowns to the four components of the information-sharing process: context, content, people, and media. Analysis focused on discovering how the information-sharing barrier would impact the project’s outcome and the achievement of CE principles.

4. Information Sharing Barriers

4.1. Context Aspect Barriers

The circular economy is a complex business model that requires construction projects to use different circular strategies in different building lifecycle stages [44]. Different types of strategies and different lifecycle stage context could impose different requirements on how the same information is shared [44]. Not meeting those unique requirements could lead to information sharing barriers. The identified barriers in different contexts are presented in

Table 2. Barriers in context component.

CE Strategies	Design	Construction	Operation and Maintenance	End-of-Life Stage
Reduce	Unaligned project goals [22], Temporal disconnect [44]	Data silo across stages [45]	Data availability and quality [25]
Reuse	Knowledge gaps [46]	Coordination barriers [47]		Legacy data gaps, Tool incompatibility [46]
Recycle			Trust and IP Barriers [6]	Lack of standardisation [48], Limited access [49]
Recover		Lack of awareness [50], coordination barriers [47]		Unclear ownership of data [51], Lack of shared platforms [52]

.

Applying circularity in the design process phases requires forward-looking thinking, which greatly depend on early coordination and foresight. Reduce strategies require long-term planning to achieve targets revolving around material efficiency and carbon reduction [13]. However, inconsistent project goals arise from varying stakeholder expectations about cost and sustainability, thus creating a layer of information fragmentation. In addition, a temporal disconnect exists: the benefits of a reduce strategy may only be seen much later, while information and decisions reflecting its implementation are needed immediately. Any differences in time create barriers to lifecycle-related information sharing. This information gap in the reuse strategy can include anything from the component’s origin to its condition and whether it complies with the existing regulations. If designers are unaware of the reuse workflow, they may not know which information to request, record, or verify regarding decisions related to reuse strategies [53]. As a result, vital data may be missing or be incomplete, and therefore cannot be further communicated to downstream stakeholders.

In the construction phase, the actual execution of circular strategies rests on accessible, phase-bridging information. For the reduce strategy, a set of data silos could cause failure in real-world implementation, deviating from the early-stage design intent. If construction teams lack access to design rationale or material specifications, waste-minimising practices may be ineffective. Timely, on-site coordination of reusable component availability is required for the success of the reuse strategy [54]. Coordination barriers are common in reuse situations; when logistics, condition reports, or compatibility details are either inaccurate or indistinctly shared in real-time settings, installation will trigger reworking or disposal of building components.

In the operational phase, CE strategies rely on continuous data collection and an ongoing data history. Reduction efforts (in general, optimising resource use) demand high-reliability, real-time data. Problems arise regarding the availability and quality of data, particularly since monitoring systems may be poorly integrated or inconsistently maintained. For reuse, long-term tracking is needed to determine the component’s history and condition. However, data gaps from prior stages could lead to limited reuse planning, such as tool incompatibilities between the building management systems and the circular economy platforms, preventing seamless data transfer [55].

In the end-of-life stage, comprehensive decision making is required for various types of building component, but often with limited information. Decisions about what to remove or recycle are critically based on detailed records; however, data availability and quality remain a barrier if such information is never properly documented or updated [1]. For reuse, concerns about component conditions can prevent reuse, as legacy data gaps deter stakeholders from sharing or relying on the required documentation [6]. Recycling requires knowledge of what a material consists of and how it should be treated. Non-standardised material information and limited access to historical specifications make sorting and processing of building components unfeasible. For recover, unclear ownership of data also obstructs access to the necessary technical processes for handling material and energy recovery, and without shared platforms, any existing information cannot be distributed to those who need it.

4.2. Content Aspect Barriers

The circular economy requires different types of information in construction projects, as shown in

Table 3. Barriers to sharing different types of information.

Information Class	Content	Source	Barrier Keyword	Reference
Building information	Floor plan, application plan	Traditional building blueprint	Legacy data gaps, Limited access	[53]
	Component IFC data, RFID tag, equipment identification	Digital BIM model	Tool incompatibility, Unclear ownership of data, Trust and IP	[4,57]
Material information	Specification of the material and component	Manufacture provider	Data availability and quality	[14,58]
	The material standards are used if the information is unavailable from manufacture	Industry standard/government regulation	Lack of Standardised Material Information	[59]
Market information	The potential value of the material, the cost of labour	Market information	Limited access, Data availability and quality	[11]
	Previous records on regional material flow/environment/housing demands	Government reports	Legacy data gaps, Knowledge gaps	[60,61]
Stakeholder-related information	The condition of the components	Field inspection outcome	Knowledge gaps	[62]
	The condition of the component, the quantity of recyclable material	Demolition feedback	Data silo across stages, coordination barriers	[13,15]

. These different types of information come from different types of data sources and may have different data formats. Integrating these different types of data could be quite a challenge and could lead to multiple information sharing barriers [56]. Also, effectively applying these data could be a problem that makes the sharing outcome ineffective.

Building information, such as floor plans and application plans, is typically extracted from traditional building blueprints. This information is often created during the design phase and archived in static formats (e.g., paper drawings and unstructured PDFs), leading to legacy data gaps and limited access [63]. Due to a lack of a design for retrieval, the potential of building information is limited in promoting advanced circular economy capabilities, such as reverse logistics facilities for dismantling and tracking material flow [4]. When it is unclear who owns or authored the information, building information is hard to retrieve, update, or integrate into digital systems, such as BIM particularly [57]. As a result, late-stage project collaborators typically have limited access to the latest or actionable building data that could inform a recycling strategy.

Furthermore, component data, like IFC models, RFID tags, and item IDs, are often extracted from digital BIM models, which can raise their own set of problems [64]. While digital models are typically more structured, inefficiency emerges due to tool incompatibility, as various platforms often lack a shared data standard or schema. The barriers would significantly hinder the smooth processing of detailed component data if the building components change over time. Furthermore, if data ownership is not clear, the reliability of data would be uncertain [53].

Material information is at the core of the circular economy (CE) development choices. Decisions on whether components should be reused, recycled, or safely disposed of are based on material-related criteria, including composition, durability, embedded carbon emissions, and compatibility with recycling processes [53]. This information, in essence, should be made accessible and standardised so that diverse stakeholders can easily share and utilise it. In practice, however, this activity is hindered all too often by serious content-related barriers, including data quality and the standardisation of material information based on the information source [58]. The primary means of gaining material information is by asking the entities that sell the material: the manufacturers or suppliers themselves [57]. These parties are required to provide technical product data, which consists of safety issues, recyclability ratings, and further environmental aspects. However, inconsistency or insufficiency in data availability and quality related to the circular economy is common [14]. Furthermore, the existing data from manufacturers tends to concentrate on validating compliance or back commercialisation rather than CE-specific attributes, such as disassembly potential, modularity, and embedded circular value. Once the information from manufacturers is verified as insufficient, all other stakeholders in the value chain often turn to industry standards or government regulations to fill in the gaps [59]. However, barriers caused by lack of standardised material information still exist across sources, as such documents could be outdated and only provide the basic material properties.

Market-related information encompasses interrelated variables, such as the material value and the costs related to modifying and utilising components [65]. This type of information usually comes from a cost–benefit perspective derived from market resources. Consequently, the information gathered is mainly proprietary or linked to outdated alternatives whose value is declining over time, leading to constraints in data availability and quality [11]. Without proper market data, stakeholders have a hard time justifying reuse or recycling decisions with economic principles, thereby rendering any CE-oriented actions untenable.

Stakeholder information, including their opinions and decisions, is gathered through field assessments and meetings [66]. These assessments are largely subjective and unreliable, leading to incomplete reviews and knowledge gaps. Information is often not structured or shared in any usable form, making it almost impossible to verify its value [15]. A reused item may be sidelined for destruction if it is not well-documented for present use. Likewise, contractors or field teams often record condition and suitability about recyclable sub-components and inform other stakeholders about their recycling status [67]. In most cases, this valuable information also remains isolated in different logs, with no feedback being relayed back to the designers or future planners [62]. Thus, more coordination hurdles exist, with each succeeding project team left with just guesses or re-evaluations, thereby slowing progress in the circular approach [13].

4.3. People Aspect Barriers

In traditional construction or recycling practices, most of the stakeholders only have one or two types of information. In the circular economy, many stakeholders have expanded roles, which require them to engage in new tasks. These new tasks require new or additional information to make informed decisions, which could introduce information sharing barriers, as presented in

Table 4. Barriers that are caused by expanded roles of stakeholders.

Stakeholder	Simplified Expanded/New Role	Related CE Strategy	Barrier Type	Reference
Designers/ Architects	Design for reused materials	Reuse	Coordination Barrier	[69]
	Assess carbon emissions, modularity, and disassembly	Reduce	Information Asymmetry	[70]
	Select materials with recycling in mind	Recycle	Trust and IP Barrier	[71]
	Plan for energy recovery in early-stage design	Recover	Information Asymmetry	[72]
Contractors	Install reused components	Reuse	Coordination Barrier	[73]
	Sort and log materials on site	Recycle	Information Asymmetry	[74]
Facility Managers	Track the reused material condition	Reuse	Information Asymmetry	[75]
	Monitor recyclability impacts	Recycle	Coordination Barrier
	Provide feedback on material performance	Reduce	Information Asymmetry	[1]
Suppliers/ Manufacturers	Disclose product environmental info	Reduce	Trust and IP Barrier	[76]
	Label materials for recycling	Recycle	Trust and IP Barrier	[14]
Demolition/ Recovery Firms	Identify and document reusable parts	Reuse	Information Asymmetry	[25]
	Categorise recyclable waste	Recycle	Coordination Barrier	[61]

. Demanding and receiving information outside a professional capability could be challenging for the stakeholder. The stakeholders take significant responsibility and may need to share information along a long communication channel, which can lead to information sharing barriers [68].

In the context of the circular economy, designers and architects are tasked with expanded roles, including material repurposing, minimising embodied carbon, optimising recyclability, and designing for energy recovery [69]. These responsibilities generate incentives to access profoundly specific and often dynamic data for the entire building material lifecycle. For example, working with irregular recycling materials (repurposing) demands strong collaboration with suppliers and demolition firms to guarantee availability and specification, introducing coordination barriers [71]. They will need detailed product components, while selecting recyclable materials (recycling); however, these efforts are limited by their trusting network and IP barriers [6].

Contractors carry out communication tasks of significant complexity, be they handling components or executing on-site sorting and recording [73]. The shift to managing components with varying conditions for reuse introduces coordination barriers, as it requires alignment between designers and suppliers regarding technical standards, safety, and compliance. Effective on-site sorting and documentation for recycling add to the operational complexity, as contractors generally lack comprehensive recyclability data or real-time data systems, hinting at information asymmetry [74]. As a result, these added roles not only set higher technical expectations among contractors, but also reveal significant communication and sharing gaps within the project networks.

Facility managers have been enlisted to manage reconfigured materials, besides tracking the materials’ level of reuse and degeneration and providing feedback on performance [1].

Tracking degeneration through recycling requires close collaboration with contractors or demolishers, which may cause coordination problems, such as seeking uniform logging practices and a common understanding during project stages [75]. These bottlenecks might suggest that facility managers, as trusted data carriers, need to address the issues of knowledge silos and improve transparency in material lifecycle documentation.

Suppliers/manufacturers have to show environmental product declaration provisions and make designated recyclability labels available [76]. These strategies (reduce or recycle) put them at the forefront of the circularity transparency network, which is mostly received as an unwelcome move for fear of trust breach and potential IP loss [77]. The disclosure of environmental or lifecycle impact could be seen as a compromise of competitive advantage. These competing roles would require suppliers to find a balance between open collaboration around circular material management and safeguarding their commercial interests through selective or half-hearted sharing actions, which leads to significant information sharing barriers.

Demolition and recovery firms are now required to identify, document, and categorise materials for reuse and recycling instead of just disposing the materials [61]. The identification and documentation of reusable components gives rise to information asymmetry, as the data collected is not consistently shared and transferred to subsequent stakeholders. When sorting recyclable waste according to the requirements of materials and project conditions, challenges often arise, such as confounding and disaggregation issues. This process requires alignment with the overlapping upstream data and integrating the existing recycling infrastructure [23].

4.4. Media Aspect Barriers

Sharing tools and channels is a critical part of the information-sharing process. Many innovative information technologies are applied in the circular economy. Integrating these technologies from multiple platforms and stakeholders is very challenging by itself. These technologies are designed to have expanded functions according to the requirements of the circular economy principles, which make integration unique and introduce sharing barriers, as shown in

Table 5. Information sharing barriers for various information technology tools.

Information Technology	Expected Function in CE Context	Barrier Keywords	Example/Scenario	Reference
BIM (building information modelling)	Document and manage building components for reuse	Data silo across stages	BIM is used in design, but not updated later, so the reuse information is lost	[33,78]
BIM (building information modelling)	Support lifecycle-wide decision making with CE data integration	Lack of shared platforms	Design firm uses one BIM platform contractor over another, creating sharing issues	[79]
IoT (Internet of Things)	Real-time monitoring of energy and resource use	Tool incompatibility/Poor interoperability	Sensors collect energy use data, but data is not connected to BIM or dashboards	[56,64]
Material Passports	Track material properties, origins, and reuse potential	Lack of Standardised Material Information	Manufacturers use different data sheets; no unified passport	[15]
Material Passports	Support recycling by providing deconstruction data	Inadequate information quality	Passport info missing or inaccurate during the end-of-life stage	[80]
Cloud Collaboration Platforms	Enable cross-stakeholder data sharing across lifecycle	Data availability, Trust and IP Barriers	Subcontractors do not upload data, fearing IP loss	[4,81]

.

In the context of the circular economy, BIM could expand beyond merely being a design phase tool to a lasting information storage unit able to incorporate the data from diverse factors, such as material specification, reuse potential, disassembly instructions, and carbon emission metrics [64]. With enhanced functionality, multitudinous new barriers to information flow arise from BIM use to the systematic disaggregation of industry practices. One major obstacle is data filling within the temporal concept of the building lifecycle. In practice, BIM models are often constructed and maintained by the design team, but they are not typically transferred to the constructor or updated throughout construction, operation, and demolition [82]. This disconnection results in a lifecycle information gap, in which valuable information on the components—whether they are fixed, reused, modified, or replaced—is lost before it reaches the stakeholders making end-of-life decisions.

Another important constraint is the incompatibility of the different types of BIM platform and the standards employed by various organisations. Firms may use Autodesk’s Revit, Graphisoft’s ArchiCAD, or particular data environments or national BIM requirements, like COBie and IFC [78]. These systems’ lack of proper and real interoperability leads to gaps in information flow. This incompatibility question is an even more significant constraint when certain BIM needs to include data fields specially configured for the CE, such as possible disassembly stages and material passports. If this data cannot be read universally, or be discarded during file exchange, the shared BIM model will have only a minimal function and may even be misleading. Extended jurisdiction of BIM into CE fields requires collaboration with other digital systems, such as IoT sensors for performance monitoring, material passports for material procurement, and cloud deployment platforms for stakeholder collaboration [79]. Every junction of integration provides technical challenges in terms of data mapping, synchronisation, and validation. Most of these integrations are still not automated or standardised and cannot be performed without manual interaction, introducing all sorts of errors and consuming many human resources.

IoT technology has made immense contributions to open building-level monitoring under the circular economy. The idea here allows for different project teams to continuously evaluate material consumption and energy usage to make educated decisions regarding circular economy strategies [15]. However, the IoT generally generates huge volumes of high-frequency data in many different settings, like energy usage, indoor air quality, and the use of equipment [83]. The resulting data is highly system-specific, which means only one group of stakeholders (facility managers or energy consultants) can manage the data; therefore, the information may not be shared among other tools and stakeholders [84]. Sensors could record operational resource usage, but the data seldom makes its way into BIM models or cloud platforms used by designers, constructors, and end-of-life planners. The IoT performs wonderfully regarding local monitoring, but if left alone, it will not cooperate with other parts of the digital environment without careful design. This issue can be addressed with similar approach like what has already been discussed for BIM integration.

Material passports are designed to serve a critical role in circular economy (CE) construction projects by systematically tracking materials’ properties, origins, and reuse potential throughout a building’s lifecycle [15]. Material passports could also ensure the data required for recycling processes and retrofitting, thereby enabling effective circular strategies at the end-of-life stage. No standard has been properly imposed concerning the format of material information and maintenance. As a result, a different manufacturer or project stakeholder might generate information that does not fit the material passport platform. A shared data schema or ontology for material passports must be established to cover key circular economy attributes, such as recyclability, embedded carbon, toxicity, and disassembly instructions, to enable effective reasoning, integration, and data exchange across platforms or stakeholders [80].

Cloud collaboration platforms are necessary for future closed loop building projects. With cross-stakeholder data sharing enforced right through the lifecycle of a building, platforms now function as more than just a centralised hub [85]. However, the effectiveness of cloud platforms is significantly hindered by the reluctance to participate and the digital gap among stakeholders [81]. The reluctance to participate is caused by concerns regarding data control, intellectual property (IP), and liability because such information could be misused by interested parties to market their own products [6]. The digital gaps between technologically advanced project members and less-technologically equipped participants exacerbate information-sharing challenges. Larger firms have the infrastructure, digital skills, and cyber-secure protocols in place to actively use a cloud platform, while subcontractors do not possess these competencies or even the training to join a platform enterprise successfully [4]. This lack of technological capacity not only inhibits the inclusivity of the platform, but also leads to asymmetric information availability, where only a few parties benefit from the data-sharing framework.

4.5. Interaction of Barriers

In circular economy (CE) construction projects, the barriers to information sharing are not isolated, but intersect across four major components of the information-sharing process: context, content, people, and media. These dimensions are interconnected structurally, as decisions and shortcomings in one component may often affect or limit the performance of another. Some notable interactions are demonstrated in Figure 4. Figure 4 was developed as a conceptual map to demonstrate how the potential barriers interact across the different components of the information-sharing process. These potential barrier interactions are derived from the emerging patterns identified through qualitative coding. This systemic interdependence implies that individual barriers actually reinforce each other; some limitations on one front might exacerbate further constraints in other areas. It is thus crucial to comprehend such interdependencies and act upon them. A segmented approach dealing with one barrier at a time may be weakened by the lack of support from other components.

Interaction between content and media related barriers are driven by the diversity, complexity, and inconsistent formats of the information needed. Circular economy projects draw information from several different sources in many different formats. The incompatibility of tools due to a lack of interoperability and automation exacerbates barriers, such as disjointed data silos and the absence of standard material information. Again, for instance, if BIM from the design phase cannot be actively and automatically updated or transferred to the following stage, many essential pieces of information will be lost or locked away, which means the models may simply become useless across the phases and to the stakeholders. These data-related features significantly constrain the potential for cross-phase and cross-stakeholder media tools, undermining the effectiveness of information flows.

The relationship between the human and media barriers corresponds to the larger socio-technical adoption and usage challenges that are embedded in the multi-stakeholder environment. A wide range of actors are required to take part in this initiative, but many of the actors are not adequately exposed to information technologies. To fully use digital media, there is a need to address knowledge gaps, promote trust, resolve IP issues, and encourage stakeholders’ acceptance of these tools. Suppose subcontractors might be hesitant to upload significant information to shared repositories because of fears of data manipulation or the company’s ignorance of the logic behind the platform. In this case, the media tools become underutilised due to discrete record systems, thus, this kind of media tools impair the essential information sharing feedback loop that is essential to monitoring and decision support within the CE context. This socio-technical misalignment between people and the media tool barrier becomes a significant obstacle to managing CE information.

Contextual barriers, mostly temporal complexity and goal misalignment within circular economy projects, also impact media constraints of information systems. Adopting a circular strategy demands dynamic and adaptable flows of information across the different phases, but many digital tools are not adequately built to operate under such temporal or functional challenges. Misaligned project goals and timescale mismatches hinder the development of consistent information flow, particularly when platforms incorporate no framework for updating and synchronising data according to the changing project needs. For instance, an environmentally sound model during the design phase becomes rapidly outdated in the demolition or retrofitting phase because it cannot be updated in real time. The failure to align the temporal logic of circular construction projects with the capabilities of digital media results in system-level discontinuities that undermine both short-term operational decisions and long-term strategic planning.

4.6. Summary

The analysis shows that the information sharing barriers related to a circular economy (CE) construction project cannot be confined to any single dimension of the project environment. Instead, they vary across the entire range of technical, organisational, and people (TOP) aspects, as shown in

Table 6. TOP classification of barriers.

Components	Technology Aspect	Organisation Aspect	People Aspect
Context	Temporal disconnect [44]	Unaligned project goals [22]
Content	Data silo across stages [45]	Unclear ownership of data [51]
	Lack of Standardised Material Information [48]		Information Asymmetry [72]
	Data availability/Legacy data gaps [25]
	Inadequate information quality [48]
People		Coordination barriers [47]	Knowledge gaps [46]
			Trust and IP Barriers [6]
			Lack of awareness [50]
media	Tool incompatibility/Poor interoperability [46]	Limited access [49]
	Lack of shared platforms [52]

. Thus, such comprehensiveness indicates the deep systemic nature of the barrier issues and weaknesses of isolated technical solutions. Table 6 presents a conceptual classification of barriers based on the TOP framework (technological, organisational, and people-related dimensions). The mapping of those barriers is heavily based on frequency and significance of themes emerging from literature analysis, rather than representing a quantitative distribution in circular economy practice.

Compared with some general challenges commonly observed in construction practices, several of the identified barriers are relatively unique due to the demands of circular economy practices. For instance, the barrier of legacy data gaps becomes potentially significant because decision making relies on historical information about the component’s condition and embedded value, which is often missing and undervalued in conventional projects [86]. Lack of standardised material information reflects the significant challenges in classifying recyclability, toxicity, or disassembly potential [74,87]. While standardised material information is central to CE strategies, it remains irrelevant in the traditional linear workflows [88]. The barrier of temporal disconnect also demonstrates the future-oriented nature of circular projects, as end-of-life recovery scenarios are highly dependent on early-stage design decisions and planning [78]. This type of mismatch is not typically found in standard construction planning. Moreover, tool incompatibility for tracking and knowledge gaps demonstrates the inadequacy of the current technical system and knowledge management in supporting circular workflows [57]. In summary, these CE-induced barriers reflect a systemic shift in informational requirements driven by the principles of circular construction, such as resource retention, reversibility, and lifecycle integration.

Although the current literature has successfully identified various barriers to information sharing in circular construction, these barriers are studied as isolated phenomena framed individually within technology, organisation, or people-related contexts [89]. This segmented perspective overlooks the systemic and reinforcing nature of barriers, which often impact multiple components of the information-sharing process. This study contributes to the literature by abstracting barrier interactions from the reviewed studies and categorising them using a process-based framework. This study contributes to the literature by not only cataloguing these barriers, but also analysing their cross-dimensional interactions to understand why information sharing challenges persist in circular construction. This study also reveals that barriers frequently co-occur and intensify one another. With the focus on these interdependencies, this study’s framework offers a more integrated understanding of the complex challenges that hinder circular information flows.

The significant point here is the cumulative and amplifying effects of each barrier towards sharing information. It is thus an approach that solves problems concerning only one category (e.g., investing in new digital tools) without changing the organisation’s workflows or supporting stakeholder competencies, and hence those improvements are limited and unsustainable. Thus, barriers should be tackled holistically, indicating how one set of strategies will bridge the gap between technology capabilities, institutional coordination, and human capabilities.

5. Case Study

5.1. Project Background

The partial renovation of an old office building in a dense urban context comprised this case study. The owner decided to refurbish the aged building to meet immediate functional requirements and ecological standards. The challenging plan of action emerged after the decision was already made. The building owner wanted to retrofit specific interior zones and the street-facing facade. The owner wanted to radically minimise any physical change or material waste, saving the existing expressions and functions as much as possible. Despite the relatively limited scope and the involved sustainability intent, misinformation among stakeholders risked derailing the project. Misinformation led to serious errors during the construction phase, damaging multiple heating pipes and some cables, and most of the secondary equipment locations were not marked accurately enough. These shortcomings meant the project suffered significant engineering setbacks, severe time delays, and essential reworks. This event demonstrated how information-related failures can undermine circular renovation projects and critically effective information-sharing mechanisms in achieving the goals of the CE.

5.2. Information-Sharing Process Practices in the Case

The pre-demolition coordination, inspection efforts, and role clarification were introduced to support CE-aligned decision making; however, each of these measures fell short in practice. These measures hardly address the barriers, and instead unintentionally exposed significant deficiencies in communication, data accuracy, and stakeholder understanding.

A.

Missing Information

The main cause of the incident here happened to be having missing or outdated as-built documentation. The owner had assumed there were no hidden structural components like heating pipes and cables behind the street-facing facade. These critical components were not documented in the blueprints as had been assumed. As a result, the retrofit designer did not make adjustments according to those components. Although field inspection was conducted, it was limited by both technical measures and awareness of the risk of identifying the pipeline and the cable. In the end, this information gap between legacy data and the current status of the building led to project delays and increased costs.

B.

False Assumptions and Misjudged Correspondence

The contractor suspected the presence of hidden utilities during the on-site inspection. However, the contractor thought that these utilities had been part of the parameters discussed in the design by both the owner and the renovation planners. Construction was commenced without sufficient confirmation from any intended stakeholder. Once the damaging incident happened, the contractor promptly told the owner. The owner was further misled because the owner was not educated in any technical factors to understand the severity, so the owner never even thought to check with the designer. All this presented a picture of a serious breakdown in real-time, cross-role communication due to a lack of cross-checking.

C.

Susceptibility That Leads to Uncertainties in the Interpretation of the Renovation Scope

In restoring the building, the stakeholders did not seem to share the same understanding regarding a scope targeting “minimum intervention.” Differing opinions on this notion formulated the base for refurbish plans and strategies for the contractor and the designer team. The inherent distrust among stakeholders, particularly between the building owner and the contractor, was only augmented by such events and prior experiences of damage. The distrust forced the owner to choose the simplest solution by allowing them to use almost entirely new materials in the fixing process, which compromised the CE aspects to a large extent.

D.

Coordination Work Partially Effective

Several targeted practices were experimented with to address the information sharing barriers. Pre-demolition coordination sessions at the site, inspired by the CE cause, persuaded the contractors and the subcontractors to align their working priorities with the project’s CE ambitions, especially in reuse and careful interventions. Furthermore, the workshops brought about a general consensus on the importance of the reuse objectives and strategic. However, these actions were limited in their capability to bridge the strategic disconnect between the intentions at the design stage and the actual events at the construction stage. Similarly, role division strategies were put in place, but lacked adequate technical guidance to ensure consistent execution of CE-aligned workflows.

5.3. Reflection and Link to Framework

Various barriers preventing information sharing are portrayed in this case study across different components, as shown in Figure 5. Such inefficiencies still hinder the proper realisation of the circular economy, even when reasonable project goal guides and a few coordination interventions are provided.

The major contextual hurdles within this project arose from the inconsistent goals of the project and inconsistencies in the CE strategies in practice. While the owner emphasised that minimal intervention was used as a slogan, the contractors had a different interpretation of how this would be applied to the project. Disagreements, over retrofit planning for the late discovery of pipeline damages, only highlighted the strategic misalignment. Furthermore, temporal disconnects were apparent. Even after the early inspections, the late discovery of hidden infrastructures showed that there was a failure to activate an early planning link with later execution.

The content barriers were significant due to legacy data gaps and low information quality, especially with notably false information relating to the concealed infrastructure. Critical information about the pipelines and the power cables was missing from the official blueprints. Thus, the project team lacked reliable, systematised data content for circular economy-based planning. Furthermore, misinformation regarding the material conditions also contributes to the failure of circular strategies. The recovered components were in worse condition and could not be reused as planned, which led to the largescale application of fresh new materials and undermined the CE objective.

Several people-related barriers were quite significant in this project. The project suffered from coordination barriers and information asymmetry between the stakeholders. The contractor assumed the planner and the owner were aware of the pipeline risks, while the owner misunderstood the significance of the damage. Such misunderstandings and presumptions further delayed the project, causing rework and igniting mistrust, none of which aided in the alignment with the CE principles. The knowledge gaps among the contractors are also significant. Even though responsibilities for identifying the risk and reusable materials were assigned, the stakeholders could not execute the responsibilities effectively due to a lack of expertise and the absence of support systems.

Although some digital tools and coordination measures were used in the project, such as inspection documentation and field workshops, a well-connected digital platform was largely missing. The team relied more on manual documentation than digital models or BIM. This lack of data integration into system architecture and impairment of data interoperability are the principal barriers, preventing the inspection results from transforming into actionable, shared knowledge.

6. Discussion

6.1. Integrated Analysis of Information Sharing Barriers

Barriers to information sharing raise levels of uncertainty throughout the project lifecycle, greatly diminishing the effectiveness of circular economy operations. Circular systems depend on the precise coordination of material flows, stakeholder roles, and lifecycle planning from design to disassembly. However, when information is incomplete, outdated, or fragmented, it becomes challenging for stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding reuse potential, dismantling sequence, and material quality. Thus, such uncertainty leads to planning inefficiencies and the misallocation of resources, while forcing project teams back to using the traditional linear methods. As a result, the intended circular outcomes, such as material recovery, lifecycle extension, and waste reduction, become compromised due to the lack of transparent, timely, and integrated information flows.

BIM, digital twins, material passports, and cloud collaboration platforms are technology tools paramount to enabling the sharing of building information. Normally used in traditional linear projects for design coordination, cost estimating, and construction sequencing, these tools could be effective when confined to a well-defined project scope. In the case of circular construction, however, these tools will operate in more fragmented and dynamic environments. With their data-driven approach, material tracking, and lifecycle feedback requirements, circular practices impose greater expectations upon these tools. IT tools will not be able to support CE objectives when information barriers exist, such as the incompatibility of tools, data silos, and a lack of stakeholder engagement.

For instance, BIM is usually put to use during design; seldom is it updated for downstream phases, like construction and decommissioning. Thus, opportunities for material recovery or reuse are lost when there are discontinuities in the data and gaps during the lifecycle. Digital twins allow for real-time monitoring and circular planning; however, their very high cost, issues with legacy systems, and the issues of high-quality baseline data for existing buildings impair their effectiveness. Material passports are poorly adopted, lack standardisation, and have interoperability issues since different manufacturers and contractors will often use different data formats. Even cloud-based collaboration tools face stakeholder resistance due to trust and intellectual property protection issues. These barriers point out that although these tools promise a lot about enhancing CE practices, the barriers existing along the technical, organisational, and people dimensions will surely diminish their effectiveness.

To improve the effect of information-sharing tools, technology solutions need to be developed in a way that takes into consideration the organisational structure and user capabilities. These IT tools should focus on data processing, with an equal emphasis on interoperability, accessibility, and incentivised sharing. The system must support multiple data types and track the changes between different lifecycle phases so that ownership and access rights can be designed transparently. This could address the media-related barriers in Table 6, such as tool incompatibility/poor interoperability and a lack of shared platforms. Practically, this means that contractors and demolition teams should capture and share component condition data with standardised protocols and tools, possibly through RFID tagging or digital checklists. These unified data templates (e.g., IFC-compatible forms) and tagging technologies could enable tool compatibility and interoperability with central databases or BIM applications, which ensure consistent documentation formats across stakeholder groups and phases. Thus, these measures could mitigate tool incompatibility and knowledge gaps across the different lifecycle stages and among the stakeholders. Digital platforms also need to include a function to manage version-tracking mechanisms and permission-based access tailored to different stakeholder roles, which could address the media barrier of a lack of shared platforms. This measure could also improve the trust between stakeholders by controlling visibility, which shows the intersection between the media and people dimensions, as visualised in Figure 5. For example, suppose stakeholders, like builders and contractors, encounter unforeseen on-site conditions and need to alter the building design and material choice. In that case, they need to document the changes and update the as-built information on the shared platform. With version tracking and permission-based access, the platform could provide read-only access to the architects and the reuse suppliers. The designer could review the update and adjust their future plan accordingly.

Furthermore, the tools must be integrated into workflows that promote joint decision making and are continuously updated to ensure they meet the highly complex requirements of the circular economy strategies. The digital platform could promote stakeholder engagement by registering the information sharing responsibilities, suggesting a sharing channel for cross-role coordination in project schedules. With clearly defined responsibilities, barriers related to trust and IP concerns can be effectively addressed, positively influencing both the people and media dimensions. While only the authorised stakeholders can view the proprietary data, other stakeholders could have access to the summary indicators instead of the whole technical document. This approach could balance data security with collaborative transparency, thus fostering trust between stakeholders, and ultimately encouraging stakeholders to provide more access.

6.2. Study Limitations

While this study provides a comprehensive framework for the information sharing barriers in circular construction, several limitations need to be addressed. Firstly, the framework was primarily derived from selected literature and certain cases, which may limits its generalisability to other types of construction project. Specifically, this study does not distinguish how the information sharing barriers may vary by project scale. The size of retrofits and infrastructure developments likely affects the severity and types of barriers encountered. From the perspective of general project management, smaller projects are likely to rely heavily on informal communication and legacy knowledge, whereas larger projects are likely to implement formalised communication procedures and digital platforms, thus intensifying barriers like tool interoperability and stakeholder alignment. Furthermore, although not directly addressed, cultural and regional variations in information sharing norms could have significant impacts on issues like trust, data openness, and communication structures.

Secondly, the framework of the information sharing barriers, especially the potential barrier interactions, is mainly based on qualitative thematic analysis of the literature. The identified relationships, such as those depicted in Table 6 and Figure 4, are derived from observations of the patterns from literature analysis rather than from large-scale empirical datasets. While the qualitative approach offers rich conceptual insights, the qualitative approach has limited capability for the validation of prevalence or causal influence of each barrier. In particular, it cannot explore strength, such as how much ‘tool incompatibility’ intensifies ‘data silos’. Furthermore, this qualitative study could not show the frequency or magnitude of these interactions’ impact on the circular project’s aim, which is important considering the long duration of the project. With limited application of the circular economy in the construction industry, the qualitative method is suitable for preliminary analysis of the information sharing barrier issues. The current qualitative-based study could provide a solid foundation for expandable framework development for broader applications. Quantitative approaches, such as structured surveys and structural equation modelling, are recommended in future research to measure the significance of barrier interactions. Quantitative approaches could statistically validate the framework, test the hypothesised interactions, and evaluate their impact across different stakeholder groups and project scales.

Thirdly, the empirical component of the qualitative approach is based on a single case study, which limits its validity. Although this case was selected for its representation of typical information sharing issues, such as limited documentation and stakeholder misalignment, the use of a single case restricts the depth and diversity of practical insights. A single project cannot fully capture the diverse nature of information sharing challenges across different building lifecycle stages and stakeholders. To enhance the robustness and transferability of the framework, multiple cases with varying project scales and contractual arrangements need to be incorporated into this study.

7. Conclusions

This study aims to examine the barriers to information sharing in construction projects embracing circular economy principles. Through a combined review of the literature and a case study, this study identified and classified the major barriers to four crucial components within the information-sharing process: context, content, people, and media. This study’s findings suggested that CE implementation in the construction sector is challenged by misalignments in project objectives, inconsistencies in data content, and evolving stakeholder roles, all of which create substantial barriers to effective information sharing and collaboration platforms. These barriers are interconnected and can create complications across various lifecycle stages.

These barriers to information sharing might hinder waste reduction, material value retention, and resource-efficient applications. A holistic concept that integrates technology development, organisational learning, and human orientation is essential for overcoming these challenges in the long term. Technological solutions, such as building information modelling (BIM), circular passports, and cloud-based platforms, must be fused with initiatives on organisational considerations. Collaboration and circles of trust and information sharing across the value chain in the project lifecycle are needed to ensure relevant data travels along the construction chain properly and faithfully.

Future research could continue to build on this study by quantitatively validating the identified information sharing barriers. Surveys or structured assessments could further explore and assess the impact of specific barriers on information-sharing processes. Additionally, emerging information technologies, such as AI-enabled traceability systems and blockchain, offer promising solutions to address the information sharing barriers identified in this research. These solutions’ impact on barriers, such as stakeholder mistrust and data silos, requires further investigation. Lastly, sector-specific studies may also reveal unique patterns of information flow and information sharing barriers, such as in public infrastructure and high-rise residential developments.

In brief, circular economy development in construction will need more than merely technical solutions; it has to foster an open, collaborative, forward-looking information sharing landscape. Only through integrated efforts can the industry make the most of circular approaches, thereby making a bigger and non-negligible contribution toward sustainable, long-term objectives.