364 recovery pathways across commodities and contexts is likely to depend not only on chemistry and engineering fit but also on disciplined routines for monitoring, knowledge capture, standardization, and continuous improvement (Crossan et al., 1999; Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Teece, 2007). 5.4 Practical framework for technology, trust, and transformation To support implementable outcomes, the paper proposes a framework that links: inputs (waste stream families) / mechanisms (recovery pathways) / outputs and process metrics / operational indicators / economic effects, with deployment conditions and enabling practices (learning routines, disciplined execution, data routines) as the bridge from technical feasibility to stable performance. Figure 2 summarizes this framework visually. Figure 2 - Proposal framework 6. Conclusions and implications for industry 6.1 What was done This paper mapped circularity and recovery research in mining (2000–2025) using bibliometric performance analysis and science mapping and complemented it with a structured synthesis of 18 full-text papers coded with a traceability logic. 6.2 What it means The literature consolidates around four dominant pathway clusters, with strong technical reporting on recovery and treatment mechanisms. However, traceability from technical outcomes to operational and economic performance is inconsistently reported, and organizational culture and learning are rarely operationalized as measurable constructs. These
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2