Abstract

     A growing body of scholarship has examined circular business models as a pathway towards sustainability. However, employee skills to support such business models have been largely overlooked. Addressing this research gap, this article proposes a comprehensive skill taxonomy for start-ups embracing circular economy transition. As the first large-N effort to develop a comprehensive skill taxonomy for circular business model implementation, this study uses a clustering analysis of self-reported skill profiles for 2407 staff working in circular start-ups. The taxonomy outlines 40 skills across six categories: business innovation, operations, social dimensions, systems, digitization, and technical issues. Findings suggest that circular business model implementation requires a set of general, sustainable, and circular skills, but some of these skills have been neglected in scholarship. Promoting circular narratives as a framing device for skill development can help advance CE towards mainstream uptake, and this study’s taxonomy offers a practical framework for using talent to accelerate CE transition.

Introduction

      Businesses and policy-makers often view the circular economy1 (CE) as a promising way to reconcile economic growth and sustainable development (Corvellec et al., 2021; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Kirchherr, 2022). Years into conceptual development and refinement, CE has been seen in a variety of ways ranging from holistic and comprehensive to only partially beneficial (Corvellec et al., 2021; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017) and even detrimental (Harris et al., 2021; Zink and Geyer, 2017). While the conceptual foundations of CE remain contested (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017; Korhonen et al., 2018a, 2018b; Skene, 2018), the topic is receiving growing scholarly interest (Ehrenfeld, 2004; Kirchherr and van Santen, 2019; Lüdeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017).

      Sustainability transitions research suggests that socio-technical transitions involve systemic changes in multiple dimensions beyond technology, including organizational and human decision-making. Such changes are expected to yield innovative products, services, and business models (Geels, 2004; Markard et al., 2012). CE transition is one type of socio-technical transition (Jurgilevich et al., 2016) and scholars have highlighted transition and innovation as conceptual elements of CE (Suchek et al., 2021) – both of which are seen as relevant to circular business models (CBM) (Antikainen and Valkokari, 2016; Bocken et al., 2016; Lewandowski, 2016; Santa-Maria et al., 2021). Relatedly, scholars have proposed various typologies of CBM (Henry et al., 2020; Urbinati et al., 2017) and have focused on CBM strategies, related experimentation (Bocken et al., 2016; Kane et al., 2018; Konietzko et al., 2020), and enablers and barriers around implementation (Hartley et al., 2021; Ünal et al., 2019; van Keulen and Kirchherr, 2021). While scholarship on CBM is growing (Ferasso et al., 2020; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2019; Rosa et al., 2019), practical uptake remains limited (Centobelli et al., 2020; Kirchherr et al., 2018b; Urbinati et al., 2017).

Conclusion

     The CE concept has gained substantial momentum in the 21st century as a key facilitator of sustainability efforts. Given the influence of business decisions not only on environmental conditions but also on consumer preferences and habits, the private sector is recognized as a key catalyst for society-wide CE transition. Nevertheless, substantive progress towards CE transition remains limited. While refashioned strategies and supportive infrastructure provide businesses with some pathways, skills for CBM are an often-overlooked topic in the academic literature and in practice. A modestly sized literature offers some useful insights (e.g., Janssens et al., 2021; Sumter et al., 2021) but a systematic understanding about the relevance of employee skills to CBM implementation has yet to be fully researched or integrated into practice. This study has sought to fill this gap not only by outlining skills in circular start-ups but also by presenting a way to refine understandings about these skills and help businesses identify and cultivate them.

This study proposes the first comprehensive skill taxonomy for CBM implementation in start-ups in the literature, as far as the authors can determine. The taxonomy includes 40 skills for CBM implementation and finds that CBM implementation requires a set of general, sustainable, and circular skills. It also finds that some skills, such as digital skills, have been neglected. Skills declared as specifically circular are not as common in circular start-ups as the literature suggests. Given that CBM is not an entirely new concept, some skills identified in this study have existed in the workforce for decades. Thus, the novelty of skills for CBM implementation lies in the shifting context of their application and in their utilization as microfoundations of organizational capabilities. Circular start-ups might need to develop existing employee skills in novel or differentiated circular application contexts. Consequently, using circular narratives as a framing device for skill development can promote understanding and recognition of those skills in efforts to mainstream CE.

Abstract

     Regeneration has become a debated topic in organizational studies, yet its characteristics and distinctions from sustainability and circular business models remain unclear. This study aims to provide an initial framework for regenerative business models and differentiate them from sustainable or circular models. Employing literature reviews, six focus groups with international and indigenous participants, and comparisons with seminal articles on sustainable and circular models, this study finds that organizations with regenerative business models focus on planetary health and societal wellbeing. They create and deliver value at multiple stakeholder levels—including nature, societies, customers, suppliers and partners, shareholders and investors, and employees—through activities promoting regenerative leadership, co-creative partnerships with nature, and justice and fairness. Capturing value through multi-capital accounting, they aim for a net positive impact across all stakeholder levels. Regenerative business models share some design approaches with sustainable and circular models but differ in their main goals and systemic perspectives. Achieving regenerative business models requires strong and contested policy frameworks, including animal and nature rights and true pricing. Further research is needed to explore how organizations can incorporate intrinsic notions of value beyond capital and avoid new forms of greenwashing when adopting regeneration and net positive impact narratives.

Introduction

     The goal of sustainability has been to meet the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987). But the prevalence of a linear and degenerative economy has weakened the planet’s regenerative capacity, making it harder and harder to achieve this ambition (Dasgupta, 2021). Sustainability has become a necessary but insufficient condition for long-term human welfare. Next to sustaining, there is a growing need to regenerate our and the planet’s ability to meet present and future needs. This has given rise to the field and idea of regeneration.

Regeneration is a key process of biological systems and refers to “the capacity to bring into existence again” (Munoz and Branzei, 2021 ˜ , p. 509). It lets cells, organisms and ecosystems recover from and build resilience against external shocks (Carlson, 2011). The term regeneration has increasingly been used in diverse fields such as agriculture, architecture, design, energy, nature conservation or tourism, to promote healthier natural ecosystems and thriving human societies (Munoz and Branzei, ˜ 2021; Robinson & Cole, 2015; Rhodes, 2012, 2017; Hahn and Tampe, 2021; Bellato et al., 2022).

Conclusion

     This study sought to answer two research questions. First, what are regenerative business models? Second, how do regenerative differ from sustainable or circular business models? The answer to the first question is that organizations with regenerative business models focus on planetary health and societal wellbeing. They create and deliver value at multiple stakeholder levels—including nature, societies, customers, suppliers and partners, shareholders and investors, and employees—through activities promoting regenerative leadership, co-creative partnerships with nature, and justice and fairness. Capturing value through multi-capital accounting, they aim for a net positive impact across all stakeholder levels.

     The answer to the second question is that regenerative business models add to the sustainable and circular business model literature with a focus on social-ecological systems (Berkes et al., 2000), based on an understanding of the planet as a living system, the so-called Gaia hypothesis (Lovelock, 1988). They also propose the new goal and framing of planetary health and societal wellbeing and advance a motivating narrative that aims not merely at the reduction of negative impacts (net zero) or the balance between economic, social and environmental value creation (triple bottom line), but at a redefinition of the relationship between humans and nature. Regenerative business models also add a focus on individual purpose and meaning, questions of leadership and spirituality, as well as nature and animal rights and the role of indigenous communities in helping to reconnect humans and nature. The three concepts of regenerative, sustainable and circular business models have overlaps in their design foci. Regenerative and circular concepts intersect where design efforts are aimed at the regenerative biosphere. Sustainable and circular connect on the circular technosphere; and sustainable and regenerative business models connect through the sustainable humansphere. This study intends to help advance organizational efforts to evolve humanity towards planetary health and societal wellbeing.

Abstract

In order for firms to implement the Circular Economy, and close all material and energy cycles, connections are needed not only within but also between multiple Industrial Ecosystems. To enable such complex interconnections, the European Union is preparing legislation to enforce the use of digital product passports (DPPs). These are verifiable collections of data about products’ composition, environmental footprint and opportunities for preventing waste. The notion of the DPP relies heavily on a suitable digital infrastructure, and it opens the possibility of using the power of artificial intelligence (AI), to optimize circular production within and between Industrial Ecosystems. The benefits of DPPs will only be attained if their design, knowledge engineering, and implementation is well-orchestrated. The purpose of this paper is to develop a set of guiding principles for the orchestration of DPPs, based upon a trans-disciplinary analysis, that form a theoretical basis upon which future research can build.

Introduction

As part of its Green Deal, the European Commission proposes the introduction of digital product passports (DPPs) in the European Single Market as an enabler of circular business practices leading to efficient use of materials and CO2 emission reduction (European Commission, 2022). The proposed regulation will mean that products can only be sold or put into service in the European Union if a DPP is available, providing an accurate and verifiable set of information about the products’ environmental sustainability, intended to help consumers and businesses make informed purchasing choices. Additionally, DPPs are intended to facilitate repairs and recycling and improve transparency about products’ environmental impact during production and throughout their entire lifecycle. DPPs will also enable public authorities to assess products’ compliance with sustainable production and usage regulations, as they will include data to enable the tracking of any substances of concern throughout the products’ lifecycle (Berger, Schöggl, & Baumgartner, 2022).

Implementing DPPs in practice presents a complex challenge to firms in industrial ecosystems to maintain high-value and high-quality material and energy cycles (Korhonen, Honkasalo, & Seppälä, 2018) as their supply chains extend around the globe, covering multiple administrative areas (Hopkinson, Zils, Hawkins, & Roper, 2018). Additionally, in order to close all necessary energy and material cycles, connections are required not only within such ecosystems but also between ecosystems, as waste from one industrial process may become input for a previously unrelated industry (Liu, Ma, & Zhang, 2012).

Conclusions

5.1. Critical reflection on the function, relevance and boundary conditions of the guiding principles
The guiding principles developed through the integration of several discipline-specific expertise serve as a roadmap for industrial ecosystems and public bodies as they approach the implementation of DPP. The guiding principles favor outcomes at the system level, which is a key requirement for DPP to effectively drive the changes needed to address environmental concerns. While the current analysis attempts to consider multiple factors and dimensions relevant to DPPs, research in this area should continue and test whether the developed principles and orchestration framework are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. The orchestration framework focuses strongly on the implementation of DPPs with emphasis on operational guidelines, adoption and use across and within IEs with the purpose of enabling the transition to the CE. Realizing CE outcomes as a main purpose of DPP is a view we adopted in this study, yet, DPP are a broader development which most likely will entail broader implications, including intended and unintended consequences.

The implementation of DPP can be further enhanced by learnings from implementing other standards, technologies, and certifications at the global level, such as ISO or EPR models. ISO certification schemes have been widely adopted in practice on a global level, but their implementation is firm-specific with a strong internal focus (e.g., internal engagement of management and employees) and does not explicitly consider external stakeholders. Yet, a key learning from implementing ISO 9001 and 14001 is that managers tend to focus too much on the auditing and certification processes and less on continuous improvement and internalization of learning (Boiral, 2011). With a strong focus on technology, the implementation of DPP should also consider the risk of overemphasizing the technology at the expense of the actual outcomes to be achieved through the technology. EPR models are an example of standards implemented beyond individual firms. The increasing interest in EPR models has shown that implementation on a wider scale, across national boundaries, requires harmonized legislation and the development of a coordinating framework that can enable the proper enforcement of recycling standards and the role of orchestrators such as Producer Responsibility Organizations (Kunz et al., 2018). Thereby, the orchestration framework proposed in this study as a linking glue for the guiding principles follows this narrative and emphasizes a multitude of relevant actors to be engaged and the emerging governance, regulatory, and implementation challenges.

Abstract

     A Smart Circular Supply Chain (SCSC) integrates both Industry 4.0 (I4.0) and Circular Economy (CE) concepts into supply chain in response to achieving sustainable goals/agenda. The purpose of this paper is to assess SCSC readiness and maturity level of SMEs considering different stakeholders from a multi-layered perspective. For this aim, a conceptual framework was proposed and accomplished through a case study of SMEs in Turkey’s textile industry. Such integrated approach to holistically assessing SCSC readiness and maturity makes a unique contribution to the field. The highlights of this study are summarized as follows: (1) approaching readiness and maturity in transitions by focusing on systems theory; (2) identifying the dimensions of readiness and maturity in transitions to I4.0 and CE; (3) assessment of readiness and maturity level of SMEs in transition to CE and (4) assessment of readiness and maturity level of SMEs in transition to I4.0 within the supply chain.

Introduction

     According to the United Nations, the global population has grown from 3 billion in 1960 to 7.7 billion in 2019 and it is expected to reach 8.5 billion in 2030 (Balestrucci, 2020, United Nations, 2019). Such rapid and substantial growth has significantly raised the demand for natural resources, which is increasing the pressure on natural ecosystems and can potentially lead to catastrophic environmental consequences (Balestrucci, 2020, Nykvist et al., 2009). One of the major organizational responses to this global challenge is the Circular Economy (CE). Unlike the linear economy, CE avoids generating waste and improves the reuse of resources by utilizing the cradle-to-cradle design (Kayikci et al., 2022b). More broadly, CE is an economic model aiming at the effective use of natural resources for waste minimisation, expansion of product life cycles, removal of primary resources, and closed-loops of goods, components of products, and materials in the context of environmental sustainability and socio-economic advantages (Morseletto, 2020). Such aims of CE can be obtained by various business models (Sehnem et al., 2022), such as shared consumption models, products-as-services, CE regenerative principles (repair, refurbishment, remanufacturing, replacement, regeneration, recovery, etc.), and industrial symbiosis.

Conclusion

     With the rising population, the value of CE in the utilization of scarce resources grows continually. Therefore, transition into a circular model of the economy has become a requirement. The purpose of this study is the evaluation of both readiness and maturity level for I4.0 and CE perspectives in SMEs. For a successful CE or I4.0 transition, reaching a certain level in the supply chain is not sufficient. Regardless of how ready or mature the firm is, it should also be at the same level as other stakeholders in the supply chain. Multi-dimensions encompassing the whole supply chain were included in the development of the proposed framework for determining the readiness and maturity levels of SMEs regarding I4.0 and CE in the supply chain as the systems theory suggests. The development of the readiness and maturity model for both I4.0 and CE can be considered as the major contribution of this study. This study examined the ecosystem participants of the supply chains (e.g., stakeholders) and their multi-tier perspectives to present a holistic perspective of the supply chain. This is the first study to assess both the readiness and maturity level of I4.0 and CE in the supply chain. The main limitation is that it was applied to only four companies in the same supply chain ecosystem, although these were specifically selected based on their different levels of readiness and maturity.

1- Introduction

2- Theoretical background

3- Proposed model and paths

4- Results and discussion

5- Conclusion, contributions and implications

6- Limitations and directions for future research

References

Abstract

Purpose – Nowadays, understanding green consumers has become very critical given its implications for marketers to understand and communicate green purchase patterns on the one hand, and to design and strategize both product offerings and customer services on the other hand. The purpose of this paper is to examine the interaction effect of product attributes on the degree of environment concern, the intention of green purchase and a series of green purchase proposed patterns. This paper is built on the theory of planned behavior, and expands it by replacing subjective norms and perceived behavioral control with respectively environmental knowledge and perceived consumer effectiveness, and also by extending purchase behavior to three types of purchase patterns, namely, unconditional purchase, conditional purchase and accidental purchase.
Design/methodology/approach – The interaction effect is analyzed through ANOVA, whereas path analysis is used to understand path strengths of proposed model, which is assessed through standardized regression weights and significance through p-value. Findings – Overall, this study reveals the importance of product attributes in the decision-making process of green purchasers. Research limitations/implications – This study deals with environmental behavior in general, and further research with a focus on specific behaviors is needed in this field investigating the rise of green consumption.
Practical implications – Product attributes play a role in the decision making of consumers willing to buy green products, and both communication and promotion of green products should integrate product attributes accordingly.
Originality/value – Worldwide, consumers are buying more and more green products, and this study leads to a better understanding of the decision-making process of consumers’ green products.

Introduction

The transition from a linear economy toward a resource-efficient circular economy is currently underway (Domenech and Bahn-Walkowiak, 2019) and, over the years, there is an increasing formal commitment toward the circular economy with, for instance, the recent action plan toward the circular economy by the European Commission (2015). In the meantime, the rise of green consumption has garnered curiosity from academia over the years (Al Mamun et al., 2018; Chang and Chen, 2013; Chen and Chang, 2013; Chen et al., 2018; Codini et al., 2018; Justin et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2013; Molina-Azorin et al., 2009; Ritter et al., 2015; Romani et al., 2016; Song and Wang, 2018; Wang, 2017). Such a trend about increasing purchase of environmentally friendly products is supported by various reasons mentioned in the academic literature, including a consequence of improved environmental knowledge driven by consumers’ environmental concerns (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Walker, 2013), or the result of socially responsible decision-making processes coming from personal ethical orientations or a set of pro-environmental personal values and attitudes (Antil, 1984; Anderson and Cunningham, 1972; Webster, 1975). As indicated by Diamantopoulos et al. (2003), other reasons may explain the increase of green consumption, the attributes of green products for instance. Indeed, compared to non-green products, green products’ specific characteristics – including recyclability, durability, biodegradability, renewability, low emission, local production, energy efficiency – may lead to both green purchase intention and effective green purchase. Precisely, in this study, the arising question consists of understanding the extent to which consumers do purchase green products due to environmental concern or due to product attributes such as cost effectiveness due to energy efficiency. Furthermore, to build on existing literature dealing with green purchase behavior, this study aims at understanding the extent to which the degree of environmental concern turns into different purchase types, namely, unconditional purchase, conditional purchase or accidental purchase. Overall, in relation with the rising consumption of green products in India – specifically in appliances, white goods and hybrid cars – our study aims at examining green consumption in India through the lenses of customers’ environmental concerns vs other drivers for green purchases.

1- Introduction

2- Methodology and analysis of the contexts

3- Results and discussion

4- Conclusions and remarks

References

Abstract

The introduction of effective solid waste management strategies in developing countries should be considered for improving sustainability at global level. Many barriers should be overcome, concerning the introduction of environmental policies, effective investments, social inclusion and public awareness, which are significant issues in low-middle income countries. The Circular Economy could represent the answer for improving current solid waste management activities worldwide, since denote the principle of waste valorization and recycling for boosting developing economies. This paper is focused on this theme, analyzing main opportunities for improving the current state of solid waste management in developing big cities. The solid waste management of two countries are reviewed: Romania is the emerging country where Circular Economy is becoming a future objective due to economic aids and strength regulations which the European Union (EU) established for the nations forming parts the alliance; as a comparison, Bolivia is reported for evaluating main differences founded for developing recycling systems in a no-EU country. These two case studies could be of interest for highlighting main pros and cons of the participation into a wide organization like the EU for introducing in short terms Circular Economy principles. Moreover, a theoretical Circular Economy model for developing big cities in low-middle income countries is described within the study for effectively comparing which chances can spread for these countries as regard municipal solid waste exploitation. Despite the economic level, Romania and Bolivia are both facing with many solid waste management issues although in different magnitude. For the Romanian case study, it is visible how it cannot achieve the European goals for 2020 due the need of change in public recycling behavior. Bolivia, instead, represents the case where international aids and new investments are required, considering the informal sector into the formal management system as a real opportunity for improving local recycling rate. In conclusion, the comparison suggests how external supports led to implement the principles of the Circular Economy within a developing region. The model of Circular Economy proposed is recommended for developing big cities in order to advance a new form of safe employment, encouraging the activities that are still in action (i.e. informal sector) and boosting the principles of sustainable development.

Introduction

Solid waste management (SWM) in developing countries represents a real environmental and social concern since the most applied “treatment” choice is the final disposal in open dump sites or in unsuitable sanitary landfills (Al-Khatib et al., 2010; Ravindra et al., 2015; Maheshi, 2015; Ferronato et al., 2017). Sustainable measures should be introduced, integrating low carbon emission solutions and appropriate technologies (Papargyropoulou et al., 2015). For that purpose, the shift from a linear to a circular economy (CE) which will preserve the environment, generate new economic growth and spread the ecological awareness of the population, can be considered the most adapt way for improving current SWM worldwide (Diaz and Otoma, 2013). The theoretical objective and the perfectly circular system will be introduced when longevity of goods equals limitlessness (FranklinJohnson et al., 2016). For instance, biomass can be always considered in a cyclical flow because all biomass waste products can be re-entered the biosphere (Haas et al., 2015). As stated by Stahel (2016), “a CE system would turn goods that are at the end of their service life into resources for others”. However, every source of waste and every material fraction can be inserted in an autonomous CE scheme, while collection and treatment systems should be assessed differently in cities, towns or small communities, as well as in regions with particular geographical frameworks and touristic areas (Ciudin et al., 2014).

1- Introduction

2- Background

3- Research methodology

4- Results

5- Discussion

6- Conclusion

References

Abstract

As circular economy and sustainability gain greater attention of governments, industry and academia, business model innovation for circularity and/or sustainability is becoming fundamental to sustain companies’ competitive advantage. A variety of business model innovation approaches have been proposed to suit circular economy or sustainability principles. Although they largely have been addressed independently as two separate knowledge areas, there is an opportunity to seize synergies from the intersection of both streams. This paper provides a review of approaches for business model innovation for circular economy and/or sustainability, based on a systematic review of academic literature and practitioner-based methodologies. The systematic literature review identified 94 publications and 92 approaches (including conceptual models, methods or tools). The different approaches were categorized according to the business model innovation process, following a three stage dynamic capability view. Subsequently they were compared based on five characteristics (nature of data, boundaries of analysis, level of abstraction, time-based view, and representation style), to allow for a better understanding of how to use the approaches in research and practice. Based on the review, key findings outlining trends and a reflection about the interface of the scopes of circular economy-oriented and sustainability-oriented business model innovation are presented. Moreover, a number of gaps are identified and a framework that maps a future research agenda to simultaneously advance both streams is outlined.

Introduction

Sustainability and circular economy (CE) are of growing interest for governments, investors, companies and the civil society. Sustainability envisions a balanced integration of economic performance, social inclusiveness, and environmental resilience, to the benefit of current and future generations (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017a). CE emerged as an umbrella concept in the 20100 s (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017), and envisions the achievement of a more resource effective and efficient economic system by intentionally narrowing, slowing and closing materials and energy flows (Bocken et al., 2016; EMF, 2015). CE is often seen as a means to achieving sustainability, but with a narrower focus on the economic and environmental dimensions (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017a). Nevertheless, not all systems (e.g. businesses, value chains) incorporating circular principles are intrinsically more sustainable (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018b). Enhanced sustainability or circularity requires changes in the way companies generate value, understand and do business. Companies are compelled to interact within an ecosystem of actors, moving from a firm-centric to a network-centric operational logic. This transition requires rethinking their incumbent business models (BM), in order to enable a decoupling of value creation and resource consumption (Bocken et al., 2016). Hence, business model innovation (BMI) towards sustainability and circularity is a fundamental capability for companies. Research related to the BM concept within the boundaries of sustainability and CE is still recent, with just 10 and 5 years of activities, respectively (Diaz Lopez et al., 2019; Foss and Saebi, 2017; Lüdeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017). As expected, these bodies of knowledge or potential ‘emerging’ research fields are still in a conceptualization stage and literature is fragmented (LüdekeFreund and Dembek, 2017; Merli et al., 2018; Nubholz, 2017). Likewise, the boundaries and synergies between circular and sustainable BMI are not clearly explored (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017a). While researchers are focusing on understanding and describing these fields, practitioners are already being ‘pushed’ for the transformation of their BMs as a means of embedding circular or sustainability thinking (European Commission, 2018, 2014). Therefore, sustainable and circular BMI approaches have also been proposed in the gray literature by companies, consultancies, governments or NGOs. Despite the excitement, a shared framework does not yet exist to support researchers/practitioners in need of understanding how to conceptualize, design and implement circular or sustainable BM as a means to solve or avoid environmental or social issues, whilst aiming for economic benefits. In addition, the way in which general BM-related research has evolved might generate confusion in regards to the interpretation of the BM construct (Lüdeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017). Research about conventional BM concepts and BMI has progressed into a more robust body of knowledge over the past 15 years. However, it is still in a consolidation phase, with inconsistencies and conceptual ambiguity associated with multidisciplinary contributions from different research fields and the elusive nature of the BM construct, which allows for interpretative flexibility (Foss and Saebi, 2017; Massa and Tucci, 2014; Wirtz et al., 2016). The BM construct is applied widely and sometimes promiscuously. Many of the proposed approaches for circular or sustainable BMI are inspired by conventional BM theory and consider circular/sustainable BMI as sub-fields of conventional BMI (LüdekeFreund and Dembek, 2017), which to a certain extent inherits the aforementioned lack of consistency. Furthermore, many authors proposing approaches for sustainable and circular BMI try to highlight their differentiation from the conventional stream and assume a positioning of individual ‘silos’, instead of promoting complementarity or integration of approaches for synergistic gains. Additionally, there is a lack of clarification of where existing tools for conventional BM are sufficient and where new tools are required for embedding circularity or sustainability in BMI (Lüdeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017; Nubholz, 2017). Not only have they assumed a ‘silo’ positioning regarding conventional stream, but also in relation to each other. Several approaches have been proposed either for circular or sustainable BMI, however few approaches try to address the integrated vision of both concepts (Antikainen and Valkokari, 2016; Geissdoerfer et al., 2018a; Vogtlander et al., 2017). In this dynamic scenario, characterized by an intensive boost of heterogeneous intellectual content in a short period, it is difficult for researchers/practitioners to decide on where to start or which approach to follow.

1- Introduction

2- Background

3- Research methodology

4- Results

5- Discussion

6- Conclusion

References

Abstract

As circular economy and sustainability gain greater attention of governments, industry and academia, business model innovation for circularity and/or sustainability is becoming fundamental to sustain companies’ competitive advantage. A variety of business model innovation approaches have been proposed to suit circular economy or sustainability principles. Although they largely have been addressed independently as two separate knowledge areas, there is an opportunity to seize synergies from the intersection of both streams. This paper provides a review of approaches for business model innovation for circular economy and/or sustainability, based on a systematic review of academic literature and practitioner-based methodologies. The systematic literature review identified 94 publications and 92 approaches (including conceptual models, methods or tools). The different approaches were categorized according to the business model innovation process, following a three stage dynamic capability view. Subsequently they were compared based on five characteristics (nature of data, boundaries of analysis, level of abstraction, time-based view, and representation style), to allow for a better understanding of how to use the approaches in research and practice. Based on the review, key findings outlining trends and a reflection about the interface of the scopes of circular economy-oriented and sustainability-oriented business model innovation are presented. Moreover, a number of gaps are identified and a framework that maps a future research agenda to simultaneously advance both streams is outlined.

Introduction

Sustainability and circular economy (CE) are of growing interest for governments, investors, companies and the civil society. Sustainability envisions a balanced integration of economic performance, social inclusiveness, and environmental resilience, to the benefit of current and future generations (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017a). CE emerged as an umbrella concept in the 20100 s (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017), and envisions the achievement of a more resource effective and efficient economic system by intentionally narrowing, slowing and closing materials and energy flows (Bocken et al., 2016; EMF, 2015). CE is often seen as a means to achieving sustainability, but with a narrower focus on the economic and environmental dimensions (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017a). Nevertheless, not all systems (e.g. businesses, value chains) incorporating circular principles are intrinsically more sustainable (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018b). Enhanced sustainability or circularity requires changes in the way companies generate value, understand and do business. Companies are compelled to interact within an ecosystem of actors, moving from a firm-centric to a network-centric operational logic. This transition requires rethinking their incumbent business models (BM), in order to enable a decoupling of value creation and resource consumption (Bocken et al., 2016). Hence, business model innovation (BMI) towards sustainability and circularity is a fundamental capability for companies. Research related to the BM concept within the boundaries of sustainability and CE is still recent, with just 10 and 5 years of activities, respectively (Diaz Lopez et al., 2019; Foss and Saebi, 2017; Lüdeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017). As expected, these bodies of knowledge or potential ‘emerging’ research fields are still in a conceptualization stage and literature is fragmented (LüdekeFreund and Dembek, 2017; Merli et al., 2018; Nubholz, 2017). Likewise, the boundaries and synergies between circular and sustainable BMI are not clearly explored (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017a). While researchers are focusing on understanding and describing these fields, practitioners are already being ‘pushed’ for the transformation of their BMs as a means of embedding circular or sustainability thinking (European Commission, 2018, 2014). Therefore, sustainable and circular BMI approaches have also been proposed in the gray literature by companies, consultancies, governments or NGOs.

1- Introduction

2- CE and its many definitions

3- Towards a new definition of the concept of CE

4- CE as an essentially contested concept: considering Gallie’s classic work

5- A tentative research framework

6- Discussion and conclusions

References

Abstract

The Circular Economy (CE) is currently a popular notion within the policy and business advocacy groups. Despite being visionary and provocative in its message, the research on the CE concept is emerging. The two intertwined objectives of the paper are; first to identify, discuss and develop the various definitions provided by the emerging literature. Secondly, to suggest an initial research approach with which research on CE can be conducted. Our analysis shows that the existing CE work is mainly done on the practical and technical levels of the actual physical flows of materials and energy in production-consumption systems. The focus of the extant literature is on concrete metrics, tools, instruments and computations. Therefore, the basic assumptions concerning the values, societal structures, cultures, underlying world-views and the paradigmatic potential of CE remain largely unexplored. We argue that CE has already become what Gallie (1955) more than six decades ago termed as an “essentially contested concept” (ECC). The paper further suggests a model for CE research that helps in the categorization, classification and organization of research and investigation on CE. The model can help in limiting the observed unbalance and enhance the contribution of the CE approach to a more sustainable global society.

Introduction

Circular Economy (CE) as an approach to combat environmental challenges and promote sustainable development has recently received increasing attention in the discussions on industrial development. These discussions are primarily led by policy makers such as the European Commission (COM, 2015) and business advocacy bodies such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMAF, 2015; EMAF, 2013; EMAF, 2012; COM, 2015; COM, 2014). The practitioners view CE as a way to set in motion mechanisms to induce regenerative industrial transformations that will pave the way for achieving sustainable production and consumption. The ambition is that the evolution of CE based industrial production instead of the prevailing linear models will not only have a positive impact on the environment but also contribute to economic growth (COM, 2014; EMAF, 2013; CIRAIG, 2015). At the global level some have even suggested that once CE is fully implemented it would result in economic gains exceeding 1000 billion US dollars annually (FICF and Mckinsey, 2014). CE as a potential future industrial paradigm is not only confined to old industrialised nations. For instance, China, as the first country in the world, has already adopted a law for the implementation of the circular economy in 2008 (CIRAIG, 2015). Since then, others have followed; The European Union, for example, has created a CE package by extending the earlier waste directive (COM, 2015). In a policy and a business development context, CE is embraced as an approach simply because it is viewed as an important approach to achieving sustainable environmental and economic development (EMAF, 2015; EMAF, 2013; EMAF, 2012; COM, 2015; COM, 2014). This vision is underpinned by dissatisfaction with the prevailing and traditional linear extract-produce-use-dump material and energy flow model of the modern economic system which is problematic in terms of economic, social and environmental sustainability (Frosch and Gallopoulos, 1989). Accordingly, CE is expected to provide the impetus for an economic system with an alternative flow model, one that is cyclical and regenerative (see EMAF, 2015; EMAF, 2013; EMAF, 2012; CIRAIG, 2015; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017).

Nowadays, the sustainable supply of natural resources, increasing cost pressures with economic sustainability, environmental and political constraints in the supply chain, and environmental problems gained importance for businesses to have sustainable economic models. With the transition of linear economy to circular economy, companies need to consider sustainability and closed-loop cycle. Circular economy emphasizes minimal resource consumption and environmental protection, thus companies consider implementing green supply chain. Especially traditional supply chain produces waste, cause ecological problems and does not consider society and environment. Due to stricter regulations, high level of commercial competition and increased public pressure, companies increasingly need to include environmental concerns into their strategic planning and their practices as a corporate environmental strategy (Zhu et al., 2008; Vanalle et al., 2017). Between the late 1980s and the early 1990s, green awareness emerged as new competitive strategic weapon for firms. Also, several factors caused companies to engage in environmental considerations including, economic and legislation concerns, social responsibility, ethics and stakeholder pressures (Walton et al., 1998; Beamon, 1999; Bansal and Roth, 2000; Carter et al., 2000; Sarkis, 2003; Hervani et al., 2005; Ferguson and Toktay, 2006; Walker et al., 2008). Environmental and social concerns lead the closed loop processes to prevent disposal of consumed goods. Within this closed loop, circular economy proposes a system based approach on recycling and reusing materials and to reduce the amount of materials, therefore it makes sustainability more possible (Sauvé et al., 2016). Companies became more environmentally-conscious in the supply chain aiming to reduce waste, preserve the quality of product life, and conserve natural resources to serve customers better (Walton et al., 1998; Min and Kim, 2012). Wei et al. (2014) emphasized that GSCM within the circular economy plays an important role in the development of manufacturing industry.