Production Planning & Control

The Management of Operations

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tppc20

Circular economy implementation in operations &

supply chain management: Building a pathway to
business transformation

Markus Zils, Mickey Howard & Peter Hopkinson

To cite this article: Markus Zils, Mickey Howard & Peter Hopkinson (15 Nov 2023):
Circular economy implementation in operations & supply chain management:
Building a pathway to business transformation, Production Planning & Control, DOI:
10.1080/09537287.2023.2280907

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2023.2280907

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 15 Nov 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1987

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppc20
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2023.2280907

Circular economy implementation in operations & supply chain management:

Building a pathway to business transformation
Markus Zils, Mickey Howard and Peter Hopkinson
Exeter Centre for Circular Economy, Department of Management, University of Exeter Business School, Faculty of Environment, Science &
Economy, Streatham Court, Exeter, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Our aim is to understand the circular economy (CE) transformation challenge and the synergies with Received 1 June 2022
operations & supply chain management (OSCM). CE represents a major industry transformation from lin­ Accepted 30 October 2023
ear production to circular value creation where products, components and resources are maintained at
KEYWORDS
the highest value for the longest period. Yet despite OSCM’s long association with reverse logistics, the
Circular economy;
practical means of CE implementation is lacking where business transformation means systemic innov­ implementation; pathway;
ation not incremental change. Our method is to adopt a longitudinal approach where rich data from systems; business
over 1000 senior practitioners on interactive events identifies 3 stages comprising of identification, initi­ architecture; transformation;
ation, and implementation, and reveals why some companies move between the stages and others value; SDG 9: Industry;
become stuck. We illustrate these stages and the successful pathways used in 5 industry cases: Philips, innovation and
Schweizer Bundesbahn, Renault, Ricoh, and Steelcase. Rather than develop new tools, we present a infrastructure; SDG 12:
framework for implementing CE using business elements which are grounded in everyday practice and Responsible consumption
part of a taxonomic process that is continuously tested over time. We find successful CE implementation and production
requires attention to product design, underlying business models, reverse flow management and ena­
bling conditions (e.g. policy, finance), unlocking new sources of circular value creation and capture.
There is no one-size-fits-all model for successful initiation and implementation of CE, but rather a con­
tinuous process of identifying value leakage and creation opportunities, progressive initiation of pilots,
evaluation of business outcomes, and ability to manage risks associated with complexity and scaling.
Our contribution views the challenge as a complex pathway consisting of configuring CE building blocks
whose business transformation hallmarks are reflected in architectural change and systemic innovation.

1. Introduction CE remain relatively unexplored (Batista et al. 2018a;

Blackburn et al. 2004; de Sousa Jabbour et al. 2018; Guide,
There are now multiple arguments for industry to adopt circu­
Harrison, and Van Wassenhove 2003). We see the challenge
lar economy (CE) as a basis for new forms of value creation
where companies wishing to reap the benefits of CE and cir­
and capture, and to drive exponential resource productivity
cular operations typically face the following complications:
and environmental benefits including reduced externalities
identifying and selecting initiation tools and strategies, and
and rebuilding natural capital (EMF. 2013; Geissdoerfer et al.
2017; Geng, Sarkis, and Bleischwitz 2019; Stahel 2016). The scaling up of CE programmes for adoption, as the core operat­
growth of interest in CE has resulted in a significant increase ing foundation. While successful cases of circular business
in definitions and characterizations (Kalmykova, Sadagopan, practice are emerging typically by sector (e.g. Hopkinson et al.
and Rosado 2018). At the centre of most definitions, however, 2018; Sehnem et al. 2020; Susanty, Tjahjono, and Sulistyani
is a set of guiding principles and concepts for the design of 2020), much of the literature is focussed on the conceptualiza­
future industrial economic systems (Chen, Hung, and Ma tion and re-classification of business models from the ‘outside
2020; Marrucci, Daddi, and Iraldo 2019; Masi et al. 2018; in’ (Blomsma and Brennan 2017; Bocken et al. 2016;
Mishra, Hopkinson, and Tidridge 2018). The definition which Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010), and lacking empirical founda­
we use as our reference point is ‘a framework for designing tion or evaluation of what actually happens in practice from
out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in the ‘inside out’. Not only can this be confusing for practi­
use, and regenerating natural systems’ (EMF 2020, 1). tioners, but important questions remain over the application
Operations & supply chain management (OSCM) has expe­ of operational approaches for CE initiation, implementation
rienced many important developments in reverse supply and scaling across the supply chain (EMF 2015b; Kalmykova,
chains, recycling and product-service design, yet the links with Sadagopan, and Rosado 2018; Lieder and Rashid 2016).

CONTACT Mickey Howard m.b.howard@exeter.ac.uk Exeter Centre for Circular Economy, Department of Management, University of Exeter Business
School, Faculty of Environment, Science & Economy, Streatham Court, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4PU, UK
� 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 M. ZILS ET AL.

We examine CE implementation in relation to OSCM consumption chains. This and related work has led to a num­
based on our research with senior practitioners from 2014 to ber of international and national policy initiatives, including
2021 across 5 multinational organizations engaged in circular the European Commission’s CE policy package, and research
transformation initiatives of high value, materially intensive initiatives such as the UK NICER program (EC 2019; UKRI
supply chain and operations sectors. Our research identifies 2021). Yet the evidence base for CE value creation and cap­
3 phases which, independent of size or industry, a circular ture remains fragmented, with multiple framings of CE and
transformation needs to pass through: identification of systems, different methods across academic fields and
opportunities, initiation of pilot projects, and implementation schools of thought (Chen, Hung, and Ma 2020).
at scale. We build up a model of implementation architecture The term circular economy has become increasingly famil­
drawn from CE innovation in OSCM literature (e.g. Bag, iar in business and academic arenas, much of the interest
Gupta, and Foropon 2019; Henderson 2021; Hopkinson et al. stemming from the work of the EMF whose reports (2013–
2018) and feedback from over 1000 business practitioners 2015) set out an overarching systems diagram referred to as
across multiple sectors, showing how a range of approaches the butterfly model. Two material spheres or ‘wings’: tech­
are being deployed by leading companies to initiate, imple­ nical and biological, depict a series of feedback loops of
ment and scale-up CE practices to deliver new sources of materials, components, products and information through
value. Our research question therefore is around understand­ various value loops into the economy (EMF 2013). The goal
ing the CE transformation challenge, and what is needed to of CE is to design industry systems to maintain the circula­
support its delivery. Hence: how does taking an operations & tion or cascading of products, components, and resources at
supply chain management approach enable transformation of their highest value for the longest time. A second core
circular economy implementation? objective is to restore and rebuild natural capital as the basis
Our paper is structured as follows: first we set out the for the healthy functions of key planetary support systems
guiding principles and concepts for CE, and the context for (Velenturf and Purnell 2021). In doing so, rather than the pol­
their application. Then, we identify the elements of CE in luter pays, the goal is to design out waste at the outset:
OSCM literature that relate to these principles and value driv­ everything designed should be a valuable resource for some­
ers. After methods, we provide evidence from industry, thing else. Furthermore, do not extract materials in ways that
including 5 cases of leading corporations showing the range pollute and degenerate natural capital and ecosystem serv­
of approaches and configurations that have been used to ices, but design systems that are built on the principles of
identify, initiate, and implement CE at scale. Our CE imple­ regeneration and restoration, that rebuild natural capital
mentation framework is presented as a heuristic for business rather than running down stocks or adding to the flows of
transformation and discussed in terms of implications for greenhouse gases and other emissions beyond planetary
OSCM. boundaries (EMF 2013, 2014, 2015a).
Rather than addressing cost, efficiency, or operational
components of closed loop systems in isolation (Guide,
2. Literature: circular economy and operations &
Harrison, and Van Wassenhove 2003), the circular economy is
supply chain management
inherently more complex and boundary spanning, involving
Despite burgeoning interest in circular economy as a new system innovation, new forms of partnering and co-
foundation for business growth, research into CE implemen­ ordination of OCSM actors and stakeholders across all func­
tation and circular operations practice remains fragmented tions (Henderson 2021). Growing OCSM research interest in
(Chen, Hung, and Ma 2020; Marrucci, Daddi, and Iraldo closed loop systems provides a number of tools and
2019), and hampered by diverging perspectives (Kalmykova, approaches to model the tension between CE and system-
Sadagopan, and Rosado 2018; Reike, Vermeulen, and Witjes wide costs (Hosoda, Disney, and Zhou 2021) or uncertainties
2018). This section starts therefore by defining the productiv­ in remanufacturing dynamics (Vlachos, Georgiadis, and
ity opportunities presented by CE before identifying trans­ Iakovou 2007). CE however is a broader value creation frame­
formative operations approaches whose origins are traced work than closed loop remanufacturing, requiring synthesis
across sustainable commerce & regenerative capitalism, value and integration of important value drivers (EMF 2013, 2014,
analysis, reverse supply chains, and business model Zils et al. 2022). For example, co-author Zils co-created the fol­
innovation. lowing four value drivers with the Ellen McArthur Foundation
(EMF) in 2013, which are directed towards the core goal of
CE, to decouple economic growth and environmental degrad­
2.1. Circular economy, productivity and transforming
ation from resource consumption (Hargroves and Smith 2005;
operations
Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins 1999). The core metric for this
The economic and business opportunity as well as the need approach is resource productivity which represents the
to make the shift towards circular economy has been fea­ amount of goods or service per unit resource consumed in
tured in many reports and initiatives (EMF 2014, 2015a). The monetary and biophysical terms. Hence, the underpinning
first report by EMF in 2013 demonstrated a shift to CE as a value drivers for resource productivity in CE are defined as:
multi-billion pound economic opportunity, boosting eco­
nomic growth, driving up resource productivity, creating jobs 1. The power of the inner circle – means maintaining mate­
and substantially reducing externalities from linear product- rials, components and products at their highest value
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 3

via maintenance: keeping them in their original form or traditional linear patterns of production including closed-
as close to for as long as possible subject to exceptions loop operations, towards a wider scope for CE implementa­
where radical shifts or improvements in technology may tion covering the whole production-consumption network
produce desirable system benefits. The tighter the circle across a range of scales (Govindan and Hasanagic 2018;
or less a product has to be changed during any refur­ Virtanen et al. 2019). To move from this position towards CE
bishment, and the faster it returns to use, the higher the takes time, vision, and a fundamental shift in thinking
savings on materials, labour, energy and capital; around how to transform operations.
2. The power of circling longer – involves extending the Despite their proliferation, case studies on CE are often
period of time during which product integrity is main­ not focused on value creation, but multiple non-aligned met­
tained and materials are kept in use for as long as pos­ rics such as waste and cost reduction (Dey et al. 2020).
sible via re-use, refurbishment, remanufacture; Further, there is increasing pressure for the business to act
3. The power of cascaded use – where value can be sustainably, but also a tendency to focus on incremental, iso­
retained, created and captured when materials reach the lated initiatives at sub-optimal scale (Jabbour et al. 2019).
end of their first use phase and can be cascaded across Similarly, visualization tools for circular business models,
different supply chains, for example textile waste from while offering product lifecycle reporting on energy, carbon
fashion can become a feedstock for other sectors; footprint and social impact via questionnaire reporting, offers
4. The power of pure circles – refers to a meta-requirement little sense of the underlying stages and scaling of CE imple­
to avoid contamination of material streams via additives mentation (Bianchini, Rossi, and Pellegrini 2019). Companies
that reduce or destroy the value of those materials in need to recognize that in the identification and initiation
subsequent life cycles due to their impact on material piloting, intended consequences are observed which limit
quality and health and the added costs involved in col­
the future scalability of CE interventions, such as emerging
lection, separation, reprocessing and redistribution. To
self-cannibalization, shifting the distribution of risk, and
achieve this requires adopting a system perspective
requirement to engage into longer term arrangements with
whereby material choices and product design decisions
suppliers and service providers (Jiao and Boons 2017). Given
should be based on all future lifecycles and eventual
a key goal of CE is to reduce the absolute demand for
productive return to the economy and/or biosphere,
resources within planetary boundaries (Haas et al. 2020), a
rather than low grade, low value, potentially harmful
key challenge is to avoid the potential for CE business mod­
and wasteful landfill, incineration, down-cycling or leak­
els to incentivize greater overall consumption of resources.
age into the biophysical environment. For this reason,
One way to track possible ‘rebound’ effects is to ensure that
recycling is sometimes referred to as the ‘loop of last
micro and meso- scale interventions and measurements are
resort’ where the material value from our current linear
set within an overarching macro resource consumption and
economy is downcycled rather than upcycled (Comella
CE key performance indicator framework (Lysaght et al.
1993, 415). The test case for upcycling is whether the
product made from recycled materials can be returned 2022).
The consideration of CE value creation opportunities
to its original or similar product. These changes are
accompanied by a shift away from fossil fuels and requires systematic re-thinking of operations and supply
towards renewable energy sources. chain. With over 100 definitions currently in circulation
(Kirchherr, Reike, and Hekkert 2017), recent work shows that
Operations theory in the 20th century developed within a the most successful CE value creation and capture is driven
linear paradigm with a focus on firm-centric, linear practices by a set of configurable building blocks or business architec­
(Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka 2015). Companies were locked ture that varies in execution depending on the start point
into institutional systems that evolved over many decades, and specific business context (Henderson 2021; Hopkinson,
based on heavy investment, internal strategies and cultures De Angelis, and Zils 2020). These building blocks relate how
that are predicated on linear models such as selling more, to: (1) Design products and services (i.e. design for service,
lowering costs, incremental innovation and resource effi­ longevity, repair, disassembly); (2) Connect to business mod­
ciency whilst staying compliant with existing legislation els to incentivize future high value circulation (e.g. shifting
(Howard et al. 2007). towards service, performance and access over ownership); (3)
Circular economy repositions value beyond the narrower Reverse logistics, including collection, segregation, process­
conception of value in OSCM as a cost reduction measure ing and return back into productive high value uses, and (4)
(Ferrin and Plank 2002; Gunasekaran and Kobu 2002), or Work with & adapt to a range of system enablers, including
moving downstream in the value chain (Oliva and Kallenberg policy, education, regulation, and finance that influence
2003; Quinn, Doorley, and Paquette 1990). CE offers the many of the available behaviours in a specific content, but
potential for new ways of defining and delivering value, which themselves are dynamic and changing. The challenge
including circular models of manufacturing towards wider for any business is how to utilize these building blocks as
benefits which are more intangible and implicit, such as sys­ part of a phased approach involving ‘initiation/decision,
tem stability, resilience, and behaviour change (Bag, Gupta, adoption and implementation’ of value creation and capture
and Foropon 2019; Okorie et al. 2020). Hence, how business opportunities (Moric et al. 2020, 2557), explored further in
models deliver value to customers is changing, away from section 2.2.
4 M. ZILS ET AL.

Understanding the productivity opportunities of CE linear take-make-waste operations (van Loon and Van
through transforming operations therefore requires not only Wassenhove 2020). The relationship between circularity and
new competencies from producers and suppliers, but man­ sustainability is complex, with a long history of association in
aging firm behaviours based on a more systemic understand­ areas such as reverse logistics, green SCM, social responsibil­
ing (Jakhar et al. 2019; Lieder and Rashid 2016; Schro €der, ity, and sharing economy (Guide, Harrison, and Van
Lemille, and Desmond 2020). Whilst the idea of CE may be Wassenhove 2003; Koh et al. 2017). While CE principles
relatively new, there is no mystique to the building blocks or within sustainable supply chains can provide ‘clear advan­
value drivers as described above. A common approach taken tages from an environmental point view’, this omits the prac­
by literature on CE implementation involves descriptions of tical considerations around how to build the CE business
drivers and barriers, or business models presented as a one- case (Genovese et al. 2017, 344). Using the 3 generic phases
size-fits-all approach (Amir et al. 2022; Lu, Zhao, and Liu identified earlier (Moric et al. 2020), we now explore the
2022), which misses the complexity and wider context of methodological constructs of circular implementation which
boundary spanning, value chain based firm transformation. correspond with OSCM including elements such as value
Value recapture and creation therefore require a radical analysis, design, product lifecycle, reverse logistics, and busi­
diversion from the usual path of business and involves diffi­ ness model innovation.
cult strategic or policy decisions that may include elements
of creative destruction (Kivimaa and Kern 2016).
2.2.1. Identification
Value leakage analysis and opportunity spotting describes
2.2. Circular operations & supply chain implementation initial process improvement & waste reduction methods,
reflecting the efficiency-orientated nature of classic opera­
Interaction between the field of OSCM and circular economy
tions tools in identifying causes of manufacturing waste such
is a recent development (de Sousa Jabbour et al. 2019; van
as bottlenecks, excess inventory and demand amplification
Loon and Van Wassenhove 2020; Kov�acs et al. 2020), with
(Hines and Rich 1997, Gardner and Cooper 2003). Value
special issues in CE production systems and supply chain
stream maps and flowcharts are often used as a diagram­
operations journals (Batista et al. 2018a; Santibanez Gonzalez,
matic representation of shop floor operations, providing a
Koh, and Leung 2019). Common areas of research include CE
step-by-step solution to problems of process optimization
literature reviews and theoretical fundamentals (Batista et al.
(Rother and Shook 1988). While process improvement can be
2018b; De Angelis, Howard, and Miemczyk 2018), supply
helpful in exposing waste across firms starting to explore cir­
chain design (Srai et al. 2018), regional studies on material
cular practices, they must reflect the principles of CE in
recovery (Batista et al. 2019; Mangla et al. 2018), and barriers
restoring value across the whole production-consumption
& enablers to CE business practice (Masi et al. 2018). While
system (EMF. 2013). The term Lean and Green is presented
the role of Industry 4.0 digital technologies is recognized as
as a sustainable operations practice that merges waste elim­
important in CE implementation, details of the precise road­
ination with reducing environmental impact but is limited to
map remain in development, with early predictions around
operating within linear production patterns, where recycling
use of various data sharing technologies and approaches,
is a periphery or non-core activity (King and Lenox 2009;
such as blockchain or data trust frameworks (de Sousa
Mollenkopf et al. 2010). Materials reduction, recycle & rema­
Jabbour et al. 2019; Kouhizadeh, Zhu, and Sarkis 2020; Zils
nufacture (3Rs) is a popular yet somewhat constrained circu­
et al. 2022). A wide range of case studies including construc­
lar approach in manufacturing because of its ease of
tion, agri-food, electrical, FMCG and automotive provides evi­
applicability in conventional production scenarios to improve
dence that CE for producers and consumers represents both
material usage and reduce cost, but often without altering
a sustainable solution and an opportunity to recapture value
the fundamental underlying linearity or throughput-based
at scale across multiple sectors (Abuabara, Paucar-Caceres,
operation paradigm (ISO. 2006; Singhal and Kapur 2002).
and Burrowes-Cromwell 2019; Hopkinson et al. 2018; Vlajic,
Mijailovic, and Bogdanova 2018). Yet this growing body of
research reveals a variety of circular approaches variously 2.2.2. Initiation & adoption
termed as closed loop, circular supply chain, and green SCM Design and eco-design reflect the unsustainability of
(Su et al. 2013; Subramanian et al. 2019). Although the prin­ approaches such as planned obsolescence in products, now
ciples and building blocks of CE are in place, details over challenged by more enlightened producers and consumers
adoption, defined pathways and role played by OSCM are through the application of circular design principles such as
incomplete. prolonging product use, intensification of use, and extending
Despite the lack of detail over implementation, the litera­ product warranties. For example, WRAP’s (2014) service
ture emphasizes supply chain, system, and stakeholder model links service systems with extending product life,
cooperation as successful factors for CE adoption (Genovese advocating for firms and their customers to shift away from
et al. 2017). If a system lacks value drivers aligned to the traditional product ownership with limited lifespans towards
principles of CE (e.g. designing products and materials to cir­ leasing mechanisms to incentivize return loops so products
culate at their highest value for the longest time), then the and components are kept in circulation for longer. Using the
creation of closed-loop supply chains in itself does not con­ UN’s sustainable development goals, Mestre and Cooper
stitute a CE, especially if it is operated in conjunction with (2017) take the idea of CE to slow and close material loops,
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 5

providing practical guidance for design. The systematic plastic) and indirect (water, energy, gas) resources recovered
reduction of waste is the basis for Lean thinking (Womack during production and consumption (Ghisellini, Cialani, and
and Jones 1996), which seemingly reflects the aims of CE to Ulgiati 2016), despite instances of implementation within lin­
‘design out waste’ (EMF. 2013, 7). However, whereas opera­ ear value chains to improve material efficiencies. Whilst it
tions managers typically talk of step-by-step improvement was common in the 20th century for discarded products to
and product end-of-life (Gunasekaran and Kobu 2002), CE go to landfill, the practice has been increasingly restricted by
advocates for restoration and regeneration, where ‘waste UK and European law because of the environmental issues
does not exist’ and products are designed around a continu­ caused by toxin leakages and methane emissions (Frith
ous cycle of disassembly and reuse (EMF. 2013, 7). Hence, 2022). While this move has created incentives to reduce
products must be designed from the outset so that compo­ scrap in production, it is in reality a variant of linear econ­
nents can be recovered, reconditioned, and reused in circular omy efficiency gains. Instead, CE offers opportunities for mul­
take-back schemes, helping to maintain a high value cycle tiple streams and cascades material re-harvesting, creating
(Bakker et al. 2014; Toyasaki, Boyaci, and Verter 2011). new jobs while preserving natural capital, suggesting wide­
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is historically used to evaluate scale operationalization and implementation are now central
and compare individual products, although broader applica­ to the CE agenda (Stahel 2016).
tions are being applied today at product, organization and
economy levels to inform the eco-design of process opti­
2.2.3. Implementation
mization, supply chain management, corporate sustainability
Circular business model innovation supports the principle of
strategy, consumer choices, and national production & con­
CE implementation but raises extensive challenges and bar­
sumption policies (Hellweg and Canals 2014). LCA is increas­
riers to the process (Antikainen and Valkokari 2016;
ingly applied to CE, for example in combination with
Guldmann and Huulgaard 2020; Linder and Williander 2017).
material circularity indicators to assess circular product strat­ In their review of circular business model innovation for
egies (Niero and Kalbar 2019). LCA quantitatively evaluates operationalization, Bocken et al. (2019) find while many sus­
the environmental sustainability of a product over its entire tainability tools have been developed and exist for generic
life cycle, using a framework of four steps: scope definition, phases (e.g. ideate & design, implement, test), only few
life cycle inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpret­ approaches focus on circular business models as a whole.
ation (ISO 2006). As elements of CE are inherently included They reveal attempts to embed circularity within specific
in LCA, even new or improved ways of interpreting LCA phases of the business, using tools comprising of process or
results can provide valuable insights (Rigamonti et al. 2017). conceptual frameworks, as predominantly qualitative in
Novel methods have been proposed to analyse and design nature with limited testing. Chen, Hung, and Ma (2020, 1892)
complex regional level CE systems (Scheepens, Vogtl€ander, for example reveals a simple checklist ‘before, during & after’
and Brezet 2016). Although there is some consensus that approach to circular business model adoption, with only gen­
LCA should be used to evaluate options for CE solutions to eral reference to lifecycle thinking, brainstorming, and analy­
ensure a positive balance of efforts and benefits in new sing. More promising is a framework for CE business models
product design for increased recycling, the most circular and supply chains which adopts an overarching view, con­
options may not necessarily be best in environmental terms necting organizations with the value network, leading to a
due to the increase in return loop activity (Haupt and systems view described as the ‘sustainable circular economy’
Zschokke 2017). (Geissdoerfer et al. 2018, 719). Here, the scope is ambitious,
Reverse logistics covers management of the recovery and with overlapping sustainable and circular business models
distribution of end-of-life products, with links to recycling lit­ based on cases whose features include closing, slowing, nar­
erature that originates from the 1970s (Dekker et al. 2004; rowing, intensifying and dematerializing loops.
Rogers and Tibben-Lembke 2001). Reverse logistics includes In summary, the literature reveals considerable interest in
the study of production planning, inventory control, and sup­ CE, with variants of the butterfly model offering the principal
ply chain management, as part of closed-loop supply chain foundation and building blocks for business transformation
implementation (Blackburn et al. 2004, Seuring 2004; Guide (EMF 2013, 2015a). Despite long association with design and
and Van Wassenhove 2009). In addition to the challenges logistics, specifics on CE approaches for implementation
around CE integration, ‘closing the loop’ (Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai using OSCM are lacking. CE represents a transformative pro­
2008, 1) involves considerable emphasis on forward operat­ cess that must be scaled up to involve the whole value chain
ing chains, with less thought given to return based business (EMF 2020), not just individual product lines, or as an add-on
models which tackle issues around value, profitability and to linear production methods. While CE implementation
environmental legislation (Carter and Ellram 1998; Guide, clearly requires systemic and not incremental innovation, this
Harrison, and Van Wassenhove 2003; Mollenkopf, Frankel, approach is not reflected in current OSCM practice. Our
and Russo 2011). What started as mapping the logistical ele­ review highlights individual practices such as LCA and pro­
ments of value chains (Christopher 2005; Gardner and cess mapping as useful starting points for identification and
Cooper 2003), is now reflected in circular strategies and indi­ initiation, but where a complete pathway or roadmap for CE
cators for regenerative supply chains (Howard, Hopkinson, implementation is missing. We argue many of the CE build­
and Miemczyk 2019). Terminology such as closed loop is still ing blocks exist already in one form or another, such as eco-
used today, referring to the proportion of direct (e.g. steel, design or reverse logistics. As a result, a variety of
6 M. ZILS ET AL.

approaches for implementation already exist and – if coordi­ practitioners participated in a Global CE Implementation
nated together as a system or business architecture – can be Masterclass, designed and run by the co-authors focussing
deployed, adapted, and programmed to identify and build on practical CE implementation. Three of the case study
value-creating circular OSCM practices from the ground up. examples were selected from the 100þ companies who par­
ticipated and feature as long-term case studies with the
course providing detailed insights into what works, the day-
3. Method to-day challenges, and successful outcomes. Two further
This study explores the emerging phenomenon of circular companies were selected based on extensive prior research.
economy implementation by adopting a longitudinal mul­ Our cases therefore cover five different sectors and demon­
tiple case study approach (Eisenhardt 1989; Pettigrew 1990; strate evidence of value creation and capture from CE imple­
Yin 1994) and building a process framework from multiple mentation (Table 1). This inside-out perspective, in
sources of data (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007; Langley combination with workshops, discussion forums and quanti­
1999; Stuart et al. 2002). Case research has a strong tradition tative data, allowed investigators to evaluate and observe
of advancing understanding in sustainable OSCM where the the types of operations changes taking place and the meth­
investigator has little control over contemporary events ods used. Our approach of ‘collaborative intervention’ with
(Pagell and Wu 2009; Villena, Wilhelm, and Xiao 2020; Voss the leaders and practitioners responsible for CE provided
2010; Wu and Jia 2018). A requirement of our investigation access to the reality and complexity of the implementation
was to engage with the phenomenon through observation challenges and commercial pressures facing firms as they
of and interaction with practitioners whose firms were under­ moved away from linear modes of operation (Lu €scher and
going CE implementation. This meant combining quantita­ Lewis 2008, 222).
tive company data, with observations from participants Our approach to data collection was conducted over time
during masterclass workshops and discussion forums to which progressively sensitized investigators to the issues that
understand the process of change (Aktinson and surfaced around CE implementation, promoting a sense of
Hammersley 1998; Lu €scher and Lewis 2008; N€aslund, Kale, co-learning and interaction between participants in an envir­
and Paulraj 2010). Our approach enabled us to identify, onment of trust (Manning 1997; Touboulic and Walker 2015).
evaluate and explore complex issues over time involving The masterclass workshops were held three times per year
OSCM where, to enhance rigour, the cases incorporate quali­ with the companies, which included CE leaders, line manag­
tative descriptions and quantitative data (Bansal, Gualandris, ers and staff from a variety of roles and functional areas (e.g.
and Kim 2020; Choi, Cheng, and Zhao 2016). Operations, Purchasing, Marketing). Online discussion forum
Multiple case studies allow a wider discovering of theoret­ questions relating to the participants own company and role
ical evolution and create more compelling evidence and con­ provided rich data on the daily challenges, barriers, enablers,
vincing theory (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007; Yin 1994). At and pathways to initiate and implement CE in different con­
a time when industry was beginning to take interest in the texts at scale. Discussions were also held with senior man­
circular economy (EMF 2013, 2014), we selected five corpora­ agement (e.g. Vice President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief
tions, all large multi-nationals drawn from a range of differ­ Procurement Officer) from the five case study companies to
ent sectors (i.e. medical equipment, railways, automotive, understand the context and implications of specific CE pro­
printing, office furniture) and known to be facing the chal­ grams and why they were being initiated (Fleming and Zils
lenge of introducing and transitioning to the CE (Table 1). 2014). Extensive notes were taken and compared after each
Our decision to adopt a multiple case approach was to get interaction, including observations around general applicabil­
beyond the anecdotal evidence typically presented in single ity of CE in terms of scaling the operation. Our research was
sector studies and base our research on replication logic also supported by secondary data collected from company
‘analogous to that used in multiple experiments’ (Yin 1994, reports, government working papers and NGO publications
45). During the period 2018 to 2021, over 1000 senior (APSRG 2020; BSI 2017; ISO. 2006; OECD. 2004). Three of

Table 1. Details of companies selected as cases of CE implementation.

Period of CE Description of CE initiative or Measures adopted for
Company development Investigation method (2019–2021) programme value creation Outcome
1. Philips 2014–2021 Workshops (9) Collaborative CE Transformation programme CE key performance Target of 15% of revenues from
intervention during executive indicators based on circular solutions by 2020
education total revenue
2. SBB 2014–2021 Workshops (9), Business model CE Strategy and Transformation CE value creation 50þ Million Euro CE value
studies, Value chain, OSCM programme creation
diagnostics
3. Renault 2017–2021 Workshops (9) Collaborative CE Connected Ecosystem CE metric based on 100þ Million Euro CE value
intervention during executive resource savings retention (2019–2021)
education (Euro)
4. Ricoh 2015–2021 Workshops (9), Collaborative COMET Circle model Value asset cascade Annual revenues from
interventions during executive based on profit remanufacturing & value
education retention
5. Steelcase 2015–2019 Workshops (8), Modelling, New CE Strategy and supply-chain Financial metrics Dedicated business unit to offer
business model generation business building integrated CE revalorisation
programme services
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 7

these companies (Philips, Ricoh and Renault) became case 4. Findings

studies for the masterclass to report what was working and
This section presents the findings observed first from the
what wasn’t in relation to how effectively the business was
changing in light of CE practice. These case studies were most recent 10 cohorts (1000 participants) of the masterclass
then presented and discussed within live webinar forums workshops from April 2018, where participants were asked to
across the entire cohort, for comment and reflection. This report their challenges and needs in the implementation of
has enabled us to iteratively expand and update the cases CE within their role, sector and value chain position (Figure
on a yearly cycle, taking on board new barriers, challenges, 2). It describes the five cases and outlines their CE implemen­
and solutions across the implementation journey. In addition, tation journey. These results offer a detailed understanding
SBB, Steelcase, Philips and Ricoh were studied as part of sep­ of the challenges and common phases or stages of imple­
arate research initiatives across a similar time period, com­ mentation experienced by practitioners across the cases,
bining strategic analysis with CE business case development including approaches used in the CE adoption process.
on behalf of the company (e.g. Hopkinson et al. 2018). As a summary heuristic, Figure 2 shows the typical bar­
The analysis was conducted by first constructing within riers identified and the key stages that emerged in the
case summary tables of the masterclass and discussion forum implementation journey from the 5 companies. This com­
interactions for each of the five case studies on the prised of early stages of exploration and identification of
approaches most commonly used and found to be effective opportunity, moving towards initiation of pilots and proof of
(Miles and Huberman 1994). Figure 1 illustrates how an concept, and finally moving towards implementation at scale.
abductive process was adopted towards matching, directing In the initial stage, common barriers across all sectors and
and redirecting the multiple sources of data between the businesses are typically experienced, characterized by many
empirical world (e.g. workshops), theory, phenomenon defin­ ideas without clear networks or support to move forward, a
ition and case development (Dubois and Gadde 2002; Kov�acs lack of tools to know where to start, quantify the benefits, or
and Spens 2005; Langley 1999). Using this method of cat­ know-how to overcome the linear mindset amongst
egorization, a picture emerged of the implementation tools colleagues.
and approaches adopted over time by each company, how When we first started to look into revalorization opportunities of
they were combined, and how particular challenges such as our asset base, we were heavily challenged by our technical
CE scaling were addressed. After comparing and triangulat­ departments, who sensed significant upfront OPEX [operational
expenditure] and potential compliance issues with existing company
ing each case, a cross case analysis framework emerged
internal process descriptions. (Senior Executive for CE, SBB)
highlighting the major phases and transition pathways
towards CE value recapture and creation (Jick 1979). As the Where action has been initiated, often through pilots,
basis for our framework emerged from the research, we pre­ new challenges emerge. One common outcome is that pro­
sented it back to the masterclass through webinar formats gress stalls, as there is no mandate or budget for taking any
for review and shared the approach with other companies successes forward. Often there is tension, suspicion, or threat
with whom we are engaged. We adopted a taxonomic pro­ from the linear side of the business driven by linear KPIs. A
cess, where concepts around CE transformation were con­ second reaction is a wave of enthusiasm, where colleagues,
tinuously tested in our interactions with the companies until teams, business units or leaders see the potential and start
saturation was achieved (Eisenhardt 1989). to advocate or initiate more pilots without strategic

Figure 1. Abductive approach to case research (adapted: Dubois and Gadde 2002; Kov�acs and Spens 2005).
8 M. ZILS ET AL.

Figure 2. Typical barriers observed during CE implementation.

planning, stage gate methods, or the implications for cross- co-ordinated, but necessary to understand the potential
functional teams. The third stage, which offers the potential size of the prize.
for increasing revenue growth, increasing profitability and When we realized the transformational power of CE-enabled
margin and new opportunity occurs when initial successes refurbishment operations, we recognized the need to also support
start to offer the prospect of scaling. However, this stage can this with a strategic re-alignment. … . As a result, we put
also lead to stalling. significant investment into the build-up of a dedicated brand for
refurbished products ‘the green line’ and a pan-European network
We had run a business case simulation, which explicitly took into approach to ensure steady inflow of used kit for cascading into
consideration self-cannibalization. … . Being able to validate the secondary markets. (Senior Executive, Ricoh)
findings on showing superior deal-economics for CE-augmented
solutions was a breakthrough moment for us to embed CE as one Presenting circular economy as a system wide, strategic
of the core pillars into our operating procedures. (Senior level change affecting all functions in the company provides
Sustainability Executive, Steelcase) a foundation to explore value creation opportunities around
products and services or business model design or to extend
The CE business logic often lacks integration within the
existing reverse logistics operations such as returns, repair or
current culture and there is a tension between the need for
refurbishment. It leads to a focus on initiating pilots which
meeting short-term linear targets, leading to resistance to
are supported and resourced by senior management, pro­
fully commit to CE investments, enablers, and cross-company
gress is formally monitored and evaluated, with clear fore­
support. In many situations, the lock-in to historic capital
sight on scaling up potential, options and trade-offs and
and asset investment means there are no points of discon­
confirmation of business potential.
tinuity or disruption when the business faces strategic
choices about its overall direction. At Philips we recognized early on the need to embed CE firmly into
our strategy and operational supply chain management to reap the
The companies that have made a successful transform­
full benefits. … Today we have very clear measures for tracking
ation to CE by growing their portfolio of CE initiatives and steering the transformation towards a significant larger share
across divisions and applications have managed to traverse of our revenues stemming from CE-businesses models. (Senior
these challenges at the three different stages. Typical indi­ Executive, Philips)
cators or milestones of successful transition at each stage Building confidence and support builds top level manage­
are summarized in Figure 2. In most successful examples, ment commitment, developing more formal targets and
CE is identified as an opportunity to address strategic chal­ understanding of the trade-offs involved when pilots begin
lenges, including market share, resource security, price vola­ to scale CE specific products and services to become part of
tility, climate change and changing customer needs. This is the core business and planned launch (Figure 3). Whilst the
accompanied by a circular scan using variants of value exact pattern, speed and embeddedness of these three
stream mapping to look for value leakage and potential stages and their milestones varies from case to case, they
‘low hanging fruit’ accompanied by some initial estimates invariably involve the configuration, deployment and
of the size of the opportunity and value creation potential. sequencing of tools and approaches, as the following case
At this stage, processes are not yet systematized or fully descriptions illustrate.
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 9

Figure 3. Typical milestones in the stages of a CE journey.

4.1. Company cases of CE implementation fees, comparing profit to base case direct sale/purchase.
Progressively more detailed analysis of factors affecting the
Philips is a leading manufacturer and distributor of house­
business sequentially and collectively was undertaken,
hold and healthcare products. Since 1996, it has operated
including LCA to assess component quality, product life, and
product refurbishment for many years for medical and other
customer acceptance of reused parts. To accelerate the trans­
devices, although as a low profile activity. Philips has moved
formation to circular principles, Philips created a Centre of
progressively from a product and technology focus to per­
Expertise: a permanent internal group to help with method­
son-centered innovation. Their goal is to deliver new value
ologies and programs. The alignment of the value creation
proposition solutions that drive healthier and more circular
process and CE is shaped around the Design for Excellence
outcomes. Philips embarked on their circular journey in 2012
program, promoting design for recyclability, upgradability
as part of a new vision and mission. CEO Frans van Houten
and serviceability. The process is stimulated by setting crite­
made the case for fast-tracking the move to CE and closing
material loops. The refurbishment business became an initial ria for every product to challenge business unit managers.
focus of attention and realization that there was investment To reach their targets, businesses must meet criteria associ­
and infrastructure that had potential for growth, new cus­ ated with CE, and stretch the targets year on year. In 2016,
tomers, and new sources of revenue, as well as hitting envir­ Philips launched a 5 year sustainability program that sought
onmental targets. Refurbishment, and then remanufacturing, to generate 15% of revenues from circular solutions by 2020.
became an early cornerstone of the Philips business and CE Philips has worked to create and scale value in its CE
offer. propositions. To drive the transition it established a dedi­
As awareness grew of the opportunities presented by CE, cated CE unit directly linked to business development. The
the company began a structured a process of actively map­ result of these efforts is that by 2021, CE has started to reach
ping value leakage across a wide range of currently linear scale and is becoming embedded as a core element growth
products. This process evolved starting with internal teams strategy, supported by a leadership program of over 1000
over time to progressively more structured and systematic employees. This is integral to the company strategy in recog­
application of tools and CE building blocks, involving cross nition that CE needs to be intrinsic in the end-to-end value
functional project teams to explore material take back value chain, and embedded across all structures, processes and
and refurbishment costs for existing product, using data metrics. CE performance is now driven across three inter­
from the existing service network, bill of materials break­ linked offers: hardware, software and digital solutions. The
down, and product lifetime to generate refurbishment scen­ company is now at a stage where CE thinking and practice
arios. This approach was linked to analysing new value are central for driving new value proposition and value cre­
capture options (e.g. business model development work­ ation activities at varying scales and in different parts of the
shops), such as leasing of product and what changes in business. To monitor progress and fast-track development
product design might be needed to improve profitability, Philips is establishing monitoring and steering KPIs to further
including modelling different lease periods and monthly boost circularity. Sales revenue KPI has been updated from
10 M. ZILS ET AL.

20 to 25%, and Philips has embarked a series of new partner­ individual vehicles along the full value chain, including their
ships such as the Capital Equipment Coalition, and PACE: LCA footprint using cross functional teams. It became appar­
Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy. ent that prolongation of higher performance would hinge
SBB (Schweizer Bundesbahn) is a fully integrated railway only on improving the remanufacturing of critical component
operator in Europe comprising an infrastructure, real-estate, assemblies (e.g. engines, gearboxes). Validation of these
cargo and passenger transport division, with a strong corpor­ opportunities via business case modelling on the basis of
ate centre providing many of the cross-functional support mapping the full value chain of vehicles across their use
services. Given the substantial material base of the rail oper­ phases confirmed the attractiveness of entering into these
ator, the sustainability department commissioned a number areas for remanufacturing.
of LCA diagnostic studies initially across large volume and As a result of the business model study, with mission-crit­
critical material streams (e.g. ballast, concrete, steel) to com­ ical capabilities identified using CE maturity assessment,
ply with environmental reporting needs. With the emergence Renault repurposed a former factory to fully concentrate on
of CE principles in the wider discussion since 2013, the com­ refurbishment of engines and gearboxes. To secure sufficient
pany’s management commissioned focused, material-ori­ supply, Renault partnered with suppliers along the vehicle
ented and dedicated CE business model diagnostics for large value chain and jointly invested with end-of-use scrap yard
material and product streams in the infrastructure division. operators to build a nationwide return system to ensure suf­
Using cross-functional idea generation sessions for selected ficient access to feedstock for its refurbishment operations.
value streams, the rail operator detected substantial cost sav­ Systematic screening along the full range of vehicles and
ings potential by improving reuse and recycling rates, with services using co-creation workshops with business partners
high potential to improve CO2 emissions and providing sub­ resulted in the conviction that the discontinuity of moving
stantial reductions in the emission of other pollutants. away from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles
To validate the full potential of CE beyond the original
(EV) would create a systemic disruption, allowing the installa­
test cases, SBB commissioned material flow and CE diagnos­
tion of CE principles throughout the new business model.
tics across all divisions and most relevant asset classes, rang­
Renault is now aiming to operate a fully CE-inspired sys­
ing from track to trains, clothing, IT equipment, and food
tem for its new EV platform, which explicitly takes into con­
packaging, ultimately comprising all its stocks and material
sideration end-of-first-use valorization of the most expensive
streams. Together with business partners, pilots were
components (i.e. batteries) for secondary use as energy stor­
launched to co-create dedicated CE solutions ranging from
age devices, offering high-yield revalorization of precious
closed-loop recycling of building components to opportuni­
materials with business partners. To manage, trace and steer
ties scaling up refurbishment operations for high value asset
this CE-based new business model system, Renault has
classes and offering dedicated resale packages. The rail oper­
formed a dedicated unit and put location-specific, KPI track­
ator is now entering implementation at scale with the con­
ing of material, component and product data across different
firmation of the feasibility of economic and ecological
use phases by leveraging their industrial transformation
benefits.
Recognising that further scaling of these successful pilots toolbox.
Ricoh is the world’s leading document management and
would require profound changes to the underlying processes
and an alignment with the overall strategy, a dedicated strat­ print business. Operating largely in the business-to-business
egy program was launched to complement existing ideas sphere, the heart of their business model is design and
across all divisions and formulate the business rational. As a manufacture of high quality imaging and print products,
result, a dedicated Centre of Competence for CE was combined with a product-service business model (i.e. print-
installed. This centre is currently driving a large number of per-page) providing high quality customer service. The Ricoh
piloting and scaling projects, which address underlying ‘Comet circle’ has been a guiding framework for circular
improvements for each of the building blocks from design, economy value retention and recovery since 1994.
reverse logistics, business model innovations, and ensuring Large-scale refurbishment and resale of printing equip­
establishment of critical enablers, such as process definition, ment at the end of contract life grew steadily through the
and improved financial reporting to account for residual 1990 and early 2000s. Here the business began to invest in
value. To focus these activities the company has performed dedicated facilities and build a team focused on higher value
an internal mapping of key stakeholders to ensure buy-in remanufacturing, towards reengineering print machines and
into the planned embedding of CE initiatives in line with the toner cartridges to a standard equivalent, and sometimes
corporate strategy. better, than a new machine. Enabled by a new British
Renault is a globally operating car and truck-manufacturer Standard (BS8887-220) that set out clearly the definition and
with a focus on long lasting and durable vehicles aimed for quality assurance requirements to differentiate remanufac­
the mid-range consumer and commercial customer base. In tured from refurbished, the company attracted new price
the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Renault recognized that conscious and environmentally aware customers. LCA model­
the buying cycles of vehicle owners were becoming ling showed the significant reduction in material footprint of
extended, leading to a drop in new sales. At the same time, each machine, and the lower cost of production versus new,
demand for more repair and leasing-based services was which allowed machines to be sold at a discount under a
increasing. Using this market discontinuity, Renault studied dedicated green-line brand.
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 11

As the concept grew, the European side of the business gate process to screen and validate CE interventions. KPI
had to address a range of challenges, notably the complexity monitoring has been put in place and explicit internal man­
of working across multiple territories, and the scaling up of a agement of stakeholders maintained, meaning CE innova­
cost-effective reverse logistics network. This involved setting tions are embedded into existing line functions and
up a dedicated ‘3 R Unit’ to co-ordinate activities across the geographic sales organizations, to ensure integration with
supply chain, distribution network and field engineers, who existing business objectives. Unlike many other operations-
provide the in-house servicing of machines. The alignment of driven businesses, Steelcase considered CE service options as
the value creation and capture process is an asset value cas­ a means to close the full journey of their products around
cade methodology, allowing any machine or product in the their customer needs. This includes the explicit management
field to be returned at end of contract and allocated to a of furniture exchange and dealing with reverse options dur­
specific value retention or recovery channel (i.e. remanufac­ ing reconfiguration of office layout and usage, and not as a
ture, repair, refurbishment, cannibalization or recycling). This threat to replace linear with circular operations which could
cascade method is continually iterated to maximize profit cannibalize sales.
pools, respond to changing customer demand or external
competition and price changes.
5. Discussion and analysis
The European manufacturing business by 2010 had scaled
to around 10% of total Ricoh sales of new equipment: core The five cases represent high value, materially intensive sup­
to Ricoh’s 2050 vision to reduce total material footprint by ply chain and operations sectors who are finding new forms
80%. Maintaining a viable remanufacturing business during of value creation and capture from CE. Their transformational
the economic downturn and rapid technological innovation journeys have different start points and periods of acceler­
in print and software required constant modelling and cali­ ation and consolidation, but in each case it is possible to
bration of end-to-end system value metrics, horizontal diffu­ generalize in the form of a signature project, product case
sion of new practices across the global business, and study or value retention story such as remanufacturing that
balancing the economics of investment in manufacturing of provides the initial catalyst for strategic growth and innov­
new products in the Far East with CE opportunities in ation. Our depiction of how the companies have made a suc­
Europe. cessful transformation to CE across three different stages is
Steelcase is a leading manufacturer and distributor of pre­ based on generalizations of how opportunities were initially
mium office furniture solutions that operates globally. It dis­ exploited, and challenges tackled and overcome, with impli­
covered the benefits of creating lasting and sustainable cations for OSCM discussed below.
office furniture by embedding design-for-disassembly in all At the outset of implementation, the concept of CE and
its products and has since scaled up its CE program. its implications are often not well understood, such as trad­
Steelcase recognized that office furniture would last signifi­ itional associations of recycling as a non-value adding activ­
cantly longer than the typical first usage period, which was ity (Guide, Harrison, and Van Wassenhove 2003). As the cases
frequently dictated by developments in the configuration have shown however, there are tools that in combination
and growth of a business requiring frequent changes to provide the approach and organizational design to translate
office space layout. As a result, residual usage periods the CE building blocks of value creation and capture into
exceeded first time installation. On the basis of comprehen­ practical reality at scale (Table 2). This is important because
sive LCA and value stream mapping of its products, the com­ our contribution does not relate to the development of new
pany identified substantial value recapture potential of tools per se, but the flexibility derived from a toolbox
deployed stocks. During cross-functional idea generation ses­ approach, supported by CE principles where specific combi­
sions, Steelcase derived a list of potential interventions, rang­ nations can be applied to any business situation. Moreover,
ing from further design improvements, to required reverse the transformational process is not based on optimizing cost
logistics operations to intercept valuable stocks from enter­ or improving the efficiency of specific functions in isolation
ing the grey market as direct competition for new-builds, but requires an understanding of the entire value chain and
with options to harvest residual value via non-sales, asset- mechanisms for internal and cross value chain collaboration
based service offerings such as renting of repossessed and value distribution. This represents a departure from pre­
equipment. vious recycling initiatives, where solutions were often bolted
Based on business modelling analytics and successful on as an afterthought to existing operations as a convenient
experimentation in the field, Steelcase conducted a compre­ workaround, without changing the underlying linearity of
hensive maturity assessment along its value chain to detect the business (Spicer and Johnson 2004). In several of our
capability gaps. The company engaged with business part­ cases, SBB and Steelcase for example, there was the risk of
ners around well-defined pilots to refine local market specific stalling early on due to ingrained linear operations and pat­
CE solutions. As a result, Steelcase began to scale up dedi­ terns of investment, with a particular resistance from tech­
cated end-of-use operations in European markets, with strin­ nical functions. It was a business case simulation run by
gent take-back requirements for furniture (e.g. Extended Steelcase that tipped the balance towards convincing execu­
Producer Responsibility ‘ERP’ schemes). tives of the viability of CE. The business logic of CE often
To ensure strategic fit and sufficient cross-functional qual­ lacks integration with current company culture, resulting in
ity, Steelcase introduced a new business development stage tension with short-term linear targets. Overcoming such
12 M. ZILS ET AL.

resistance through internal cross-functional activities such as

Dedicated
CE unit
workshops and value mapping are vital for commitment to

x
x

x
CE investment. Once support is gained, CE implementation is

Transforming operations
a not a process of incremental change because it involves a

management &
Stakeholder
transformation of operations and supply chain, requiring rad­

framework
analysis
ical innovation to value creation in areas ranging from prod­

x
x
x
x
x
uct strategy, manufacturing, and exploring how to reconnect
with business partners and suppliers and their deep embed­
ding into operational supply chain management (Kivimaa
development &
Circular KPI

monitoring
and Kern 2016).
Implement

Moving beyond addressing cost, efficiency, or operational

x
x
x
x
x
components of closed loop systems in isolation therefore
requires rethinking the transformation process as whole sys­
development

tem innovation, whose architecture can be reconfigured

Agile IT &
process

according to specific operating conditions (Henderson 2021).

x
x
x
x
x
Tools & practice

Our findings show that in most cases, OSCM functions were

at the core of these transformations as they possess the skills
and transverse perspective to coordinate different needs of
Trans-formation

customers, suppliers, and the commercial aspects of the

toolbox
x

x
x
x

company. For example, Ricoh realized the potential for refur­

bished goods as a dedicated product line with its own rev­
enue stream. Philips generated refurbishment scenarios by
Systematic

analysing new value capture options such as product leasing

screening

building
blocks
of CE
Transforming operations

and what changes in product design might be needed to

x
x
x
x
x

improve profitability. Hence, our CE implementation frame­

work (Figure 4) is presented as a culmination of our findings
partner co-creation

and heuristic for business transformation with implications

workshops
Business

for OSCM. We argue models of CE implementation must go

x
x

beyond descriptions of drivers and barriers or presented as a

one-size-fits-all approach (Amir et al. 2022; Lu, Zhao, and Liu
2022), and instead capable of reconfiguration according to
Initiate

business sector and circumstance. Figure 4 synthesizes the

simulation
Business
model

role and relevance of different tools and operations across

x
x
x
x
x

the phases, and is relatable to the key building blocks

Tools & practice

described earlier (EMF 2013, 2014, Zils et al. 2022):

product &
Circular

service

The identify opportunities phase uses variants of value

design
x
x
x
x
x

stream mapping and LCA facilitated via cross-functional and

business model development workshops to provide system­
assessment

atic analysis of opportunities, options for early adoption, and

maturity

shared understanding of CE. For example, LCA can be used

CE

to detect the areas of greatest value leakage in products and

Table 2. CE tools, practice and transforming operations by case.

services, or most significant environmental impacts to be

development
workshops
Transforming operations

designed out and positive impacts designed in. In Philips

Business
model

and Steelcase, this stage can be focussed on specific prod­

x
x
x
x
x

ucts or product categories, but then enlarged to cover all

new products. These tools help overcome the tendency to
generation
workshops
functional

generate large number of ideas which are then difficult to

Cross

idea

co-ordinate or place within a long-term systemic value cre­

Identify

x
x
x
x
x

ation program. It also connects key functional teams critical

to driving CE innovation. Business model simulation is an
analysis
cycle
Tools & practice

Life

important tool which spans all three phases but is especially

x
x
x

important in this initial phase to ensure functional teams

don’t lose sight of the overall CE framework, and the inter­
mapping
stream
Value

connectedness of the four building blocks.

x
x
x
x
x

Initiate pilots & proof of concept phase uses dedicated

product and service design tools to develop the value cre­
Steelcase
Renault
Philips

ation process. Here, resources, materials and LCA compo­

Ricoh
SBB

nents of products and services meet the customer value

 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 13

Figure 4. Framework for CE pathways to business transformation.

proposition and additional value drivers. The four building inevitable trade-offs that occur to navigate the transform­
blocks are screened and embedded systemically within a ation alongside the linear business. As the concurrently
business model simulation exercise. At this stage, a business active CE initiatives increase, the number of involved parties
often finds it is lacking or missing some key capabilities and and reporting requirements start to raise significantly, where
competencies, such as deep understanding of CE principles it is important to deploy dedicated program management
but broad leadership and change management skills to drive instruments (i.e. toolbox), as well as putting dedicated staff
the process. CE maturity assessment can map the capacity in place to build and pool knowledge to manage large-scale
and capability gap and put in place an internal transform­ transformations which often cut across different business
ational programme. The nature of CE requires the need for units. In the case of the rail operator SBB, the pooling took
whole supply chain interaction, but in a different way to place in a dedicated cross-divisional Centre of Competence
traditional supply chain partnering. Collaboration in CE with direct links to the top management and the business
involves potentially new forms of value creation and sharing; development function to ensure that emerging trade-offs
hence it is essential to bring in existing and new partners. In can be quickly resolved in dialogue with the different corpor­
Renault’s case, this involved an entirely new CE value ecosys­ ate functions and divisional interests. To embed these
tem with many new suppliers and subsidiaries. These changes, the company engaged in an agile IT-based process
arrangements involve various forms of business partnering initiative and explicitly modelled reverse options into the
workshops. In parallel with more linear operations, as CE company’s workflow and documentation process. This
becomes an accepted business logic, there is the need to set ensured that operators in the field could detect and use cir­
up dedicated units to co-ordinate and orchestrate overall cular reverse value chain options as fully operationally sup­
strategy. In our examples, these units differ from traditional ported standard processes, for example registering
sustainability units by being closely aligned to the business refurbished products back into the inventory system for
development unit as a profit rather than a cost centre. redeployment as good-as-new. Digitization also plays a core
As the implementation at scale strategy matures, a wider role in this transformation process, both in terms of
set of tools are required to manage the complexity and embedded in product-service business models, managing
14 M. ZILS ET AL.

assets, and co-ordinating information flow across the value companies configure their own OSCM pathway to capture
chain. In the case of Ricoh, the success of their CE value the full value creation opportunity towards business
asset management system required real-time information on transformation.
location, condition, contract duration and maintenance of
the product before its return for remanufacturing. This
6. Conclusion
requires agile IT and process development, ensuring the CE
activities are embedded into the mainstream business sys­ In this paper we tackle the question of how does taking an
tems. Thus, third-party resource enterprise tools play an operations & supply chain management approach enable
increasingly important role in the co-ordination effort. The transformation of circular economy implementation.
design of CE specific targets and KPIs is a characteristic of Operations resides at the core of any business paradigm and
the most advanced business in CE implementation, used to for decades has driven the engine of mass production and
communicate financial benefits and performance, incentivize consumption, which must now change (de Sousa Jabbour
sales teams, and shift internal culture and manage relation­ et al. 2018, Jabbour et al. 2019). We apply CE in the context
ships with external stakeholders. of operations practice (Kalmykova, Sadagopan, and Rosado
Our framework presents CE implementation as a trans­ 2018; Mishra, Hopkinson, and Tidridge 2018), starting with
formation whose building blocks or architecture is reconfig­ understanding how value chains in the traditional linear
urable to suit specific company challenges, supporting the sense involve adding value at each step of the process, while
idea of CE as a dynamic, systems orientated innovation (Bag, optimizing, reducing, or reconfiguring costs along the chain.
Gupta, and Foropon 2019; Henderson 2021). The workshops Yet CE is more than about cost, recycling, or reverse logistics
with practitioners revealed that these tools are never in isolation (Guide, Harrison, and Van Wassenhove 2003), but
deployed in a neat, linear, or progressive fashion, but evolve represents a new system for value capture delivered through
iteratively as pathways across varying timescales and remanufacture, servicisation and product life extension,
sequencing (Figure 5). While the pathways are case specific decarburization & dematerialization, digitization, and cascad­
in terms of the combination of tools and timings around ing product: all of which maintains components and materi­
decision points and partner involvement, further research als across value chains for the longest period at the highest
could reveal patterns in their configuration according to fac­ value (EMF 2013, 2014). Our paper therefore represents a
tors such as business sector or firm size. Our wider experi­ synthesis between OSCM and CE. Whilst OSCM provides
ence of working with companies from the ‘inside out’ many long-standing tools which can be applied in the frame­
through our masterclass, suggests a structured approach work, it is circular economy that provides the underlying
towards tools and processes are the hallmark of companies principles and foundation which supports the reconfigurable
that have managed to move past simple notions of change system architecture used in business transformation.
or cost reduction, to CE transformation as a viable propos­ Our theoretical contribution is to present the CE imple­
ition that is first initiated and supported through scaled mentation challenge as a complex pathway consisting of
implementation. Following the principle of our framework building blocks whose transformation hallmarks are reflected
therefore, each company’s transition will not be the same, in architectural business change, dynamic boundary span­
but may adopt some, or all, of the building block architec­ ning and systemic innovation (Bag, Gupta, and Foropon
ture. Only by connecting and understanding the process, 2019). We reject the idea of change towards CE involving
challenges, and practical approaches to CE systemically will one part of the system as in remanufacturing or recycling,

Figure 5. Example of a CE pathway.

 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 15

instead advocating a new operating principle using a recon­ and the licence to scale across the company. Look for
figurable architecture approach that is adaptable to suit mul­ pilots and initiatives that may already be taking place,
tiple business applications (Henderson 2021). Our research that align with CE, and find out what has been achieved,
goes beyond exploration of traditional operations metrics key successes, learning points and failures which can help
such as waste and cost reduction, instead highlighting the avoid repeating mistakes.
opportunities in resource productivity for firms presented by � Undertake a baseline material flow as part of a compre­
value recapture and creation (Dey et al. 2020). Our findings hensive and systematic value leakage mapping. From this,
illustrate that value recapture and creation require a radical evaluate whether you measure, quantify and visually rep­
diversion from the usual path of business and often involve resent the stocks and flows of those materials, compo­
difficult managerial decisions and trade-offs. CE implementa­ nents and products that you control, as well as the
tion therefore is a not a process of incremental change, but overall value chain of interest. If not, then build up rough
requires a transformation of the company’s approach to orders of magnitude and work with the best data you
operations, requiring radical innovation to reconnect value have available. This mapping exercise starts the search for
creation across product strategy, manufacturing, and supply ideas for value creation opportunity and rapid scoping of
chain partners (Kivimaa and Kern 2016). Hence, while current a potential positive business case. The process of visual
literature on CE implementation includes drivers, barriers, representation also helps tell a strong and coherent story
and one-size-fits-all models, we argue a more flexible and to different internal audiences, keeps data collection and
embedded approach is required from OSCM, where our CE analysis manageable, and avoids becoming overwhelmed
framework of building block architecture can be reconfigured with complexity and too many ideas, which can create
and adapted to suit specific company contexts and confusion and loss of momentum;
challenges. � Involve cross-functional teams from the start of the
For the practitioner, our contribution is represented by opportunity identification right to the scaling of the
the framework in Figure 4 as a guide to how and where implementation process. This creates and maintains the
OSCM and CE practices intersect, and the stages of imple­ need for whole system thinking and ensures all key
mentation which, when combined together at system or building blocks (i.e. design, business model, reverse
supply chain level can realize a business transformation. We logistics, and system enablers) for successful CE transfor­
explore the dynamics of CE implementation across compa­ mations are designed into the process at the outset.
nies that place the experience of the firm in the context of Missing out one or more of these building blocks is
a system level challenge. OSCM has a long-standing rele­ likely to stall progress and limit the overall value capture
vance to CE but is missing the bigger picture in terms of potential;
what we term building blocks. Hence, the tools and � Be inspired by other companies but focus on your com­
approaches we identify and describe are not new, but do pany and supply chain specific opportunities to develop
represent a combination of methods, with some revitalized your own pathway to CE. Identify key capabilities and
to drive the CE business transformation. Our practical rec­ competencies that will be required and where there are
ommendations for business on the linear to CE transition knowledge or skills gaps, and create an internal training
path include: and skills development process or look for additional
external support;
� Translate your sector or business into the CE butterfly dia­ � Accept CE implementation as a radical transformation
gram, identify its position in the value chain and core requiring investment and top-management buy-in over
business activities, as the application of CE will differ in time. Continuity of budgets and embedding the change
each case. If your primary material, component, and prod­ process in KPIs and metric frameworks will help to buffer
uct flows are technical materials or products of service changes in leadership and management teams;
such as the five cases presented here, this will point � Engage early with key business partners & suppliers along
towards different CE design, business model and reverse your operational supply and value chains to ensure con­
logistics interventions. If you are a cross-cutting boundary tinued boundary spanning collaboration and innovation
spanning service company (e.g. data, technology, finance, both upstream and downstream;
marketing), you need to be clear which sectors or value � Accompany the transformation with CE financial, environ­
chains present the most opportunity to intervene and mental, and social metrics and indicators measures
collaborate; around value creation and recapture to guide agile deci­
� Be clear about your ambition, levels of internal support, sion making and firm datasets for potentially tough
and outcomes at each stage of the process of transform­ trade-off decisions in the scaling phase, such as potential
ation. Fully understand the principles of CE to avoid it cannibalization of the linear business.
becoming another recycling initiative or a potentially
regrettable material substitution (e.g. moving from single The limitation of our research is reflected in the manu­
use synthetic plastics, to single use non-biodegradable facturing orientated nature of the companies selected
bioplastics); (although four of the cases: Phillips, Ricoh, Renault and
� Start with a focus on a relevant signature product or ser­ Steelcase also have a strong service orientation), where
vice area by implementing CE to create early proof-points more focus on service-based organizations could provide an
16 M. ZILS ET AL.

interesting comparison in future. Further research includes Supply Management, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, and Journal
exploring the paradox that exists between linear and circu­ of Information Technology. He is the author of several books: the ACA-
Bruel award winning ‘Purchasing & Supply Chain Management: A
lar operations where – despite their discontinuities – the
Sustainability Perspective’ (2014, 2018) Routledge UK, and ‘Procuring
transition to CE requires companies to run both in tandem Complex Performance’ (2011) Routledge NY. He has served as Director of
before circular capacity increases. The same traditional pro­ Research and co-founded the Circular Economy Business Forum in 2015.
duction methods that ultimately will be phased out are also
the source of funding which supports CE programs and ini­
tiatives across the company. Managers engaged in CE Peter Hopkinson is Professor in Circular Economy at
implementation therefore need to be aware of the impact the University of Exeter Business School. He has
of human factors relating to changes in functional orienta­ worked with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation for
tion as well as technical challenges during the linear-circular over 10 years. Through this partnership, he set up in
2014 the world’s first MBA in Circular Economy cre­
paradigm shift. It is expected in time that other tools and
ated with Professor Markus Zils, a Global online
processes will be developed to respond to the rapidly MasterClass in the Implementation of Circular
changing policy landscape, such as digital material pass­ Economy with over 2000 participants since 2013. His
ports, or continuing concerns about commodities and glo­ research interest is the translation of circular econ­
bal supply chain risk. The common unit of analysis in all omy into business contexts and critical analysis and evaluation of the
adoption and implementation of circular economy in practice. He has
successful CE implementations at scale is the value chain
published in academic journals including California Management Review,
and the ability to shift the focus of value (and loss of value) Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Environment International,
from firm centric, to boundary spanning systems. OSCM has Environment & Planning, Journal of Cleaner Production, Production
a vital role to play in developing the science and practice Planning & Control, Lancet, Environmental Science & Policy. Peter is co-
of future CE system design and overcoming the many bar­ Director of the Exeter Centre for Circular Economy and also co-Director
riers and research challenges during the multi-phase trans­ of the UK National Circular Economy Hub, funded by the UK Research
and Innovation Council (2020–2024).
formation of our economies.
References
Disclosure statement Abuabara, L., A. Paucar-Caceres, and T. Burrowes-Cromwell. 2019.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). “Consumers’ Values and Behaviour in the Brazilian Coffee-in-Capsules
Market: Promoting Circular Economy.” International Journal of
Production Research 57 (23): 7269–7288. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Notes on contributors 00207543.2019.1629664
Amir, S., N. Salehi, M. Roci, S. Sweet, and A. Rashid. 2022. “Towards
Circular Economy: A Guiding Framework for Circular Supply Chain
Markus Zils is Professor in Circular Economy & Implementation.” Business Strategy & the Environment.
Management Science and has worked alongside the Antikainen, M., and K. Valkokari. 2016. “A Framework for Sustainable
Center for Circular Economy at University of Exeter Circular Business Model Innovation.” Technology Innovation
Business School since 2019. Markus holds a PhD in Management Review 6 (7): 5–12. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/
operations research and Masters in Management 1000
Science from the University of Cologne, and a CEMS- APSRG. 2020. “No Time to Waste – Resources, Recovery and the Road to
Master from the Community of European Net Zero. All Parliamentary Sustainable Resource Group.” Policy
Management schools. He has published in business Connect, July 14. https://www.policyconnect.org.uk.
journals & private reports including California Aktinson, P., and M. Hammersley. 1998. “Ethnography and Participant
Management Review, Mckinsey Quarterly, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and Observation.” Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, 248–261. Thousand
the Office of National Statistics. As an entrepreneur and consultant, he Oaks: Sage.
has co-founded a rapid prototyping and software development start-up, Bag, S., S. Gupta, and C. Foropon. 2019. “Examining the Role of Dynamic
worked at McKinsey & Company as a principal in transportation and Remanufacturing Capability on Supply Chain Resilience in Circular
logistics, and as founding member of the circular economy service line Economy.” Management Decision 57 (4): 863–885. https://doi.org/10.
serving clients in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. Most recently he 1108/MD-07-2018-0724
has led Returnity Partners, a professional service firm for accelerating the Bakker, C. A., M. C. den Hollander, E. van Hinte, and Y. Zljlstra. 2014.
transition towards a circular economy via targeted research, consulting Products That Last – Product Design for Circular Business Models. Delft:
and investment projects. TU Delft Library.
Bansal, P., J. Gualandris, and N. Kim. 2020. “Theorizing Supply Chains
with Qualitative Big Data and Topic Modelling.” Journal of Supply
Mickey Howard is Professor in Sustainable Supply Chain Management 56 (2): 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12224
Chain Management at the University of Exeter Batista, L., M. Bourlakis, Y. Liu, P. Smart, and A. Sohal. 2018a. “Editorial to
Business School. He has previously worked at the the Special issue – Supply Chain Operations for a Circular Economy.”
University of Bath, School of Management, and has Production Planning & Control 29 (6): 419–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10 years prior industry experience. His research 09537287.2018.1449267
examines how circular business models and closed Batista, L., M. Bourlakis, P. Smart, and R. Maull. 2018b. “In Search of a
loop systems create value for business and society Circular Supply Chain Archetype – A Content-Analysis-Based
while protecting the natural environment. He has Literature Review.” Production Planning & Control 29 (6): 438–451.
published in academic journals including Journal of https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1343502
Business Research, British Journal of Management, International Journal of Batista, L., Y. Gong, S. Pereira, F. Jia, and A. Bittar. 2019. “Circular Supply
Operations & Production Management, International Journal of Production Chains in Emerging Economies – A Comparative Study of Packaging
Research, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Purchasing & Recovery Ecosystems in China and Brazil.” International Journal of
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 17

Production Research 57 (23): 7248–7268. https://doi.org/10.1080/ EMF. 2020. What is a Circular Economy? A Framework for an Economy
00207543.2018.1558295 That is Restorative and Regenerative by Design. Cowes, UK: EMF.
Bianchini, A., Rossi, J., & Pellegrini, M. (2019). Overcoming the Main Ferrin, B. G., and R. E. Plank. 2002. “Total Cost of Ownership Models: An
Barriers of Circular Economy Implementation through a New Exploratory Study.” The Journal of Supply Chain Management 38 (3):
Visualization Tool for Circular Business Models. Sustainability, 11 (23), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2002.tb00132.x
6614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236614 Frith, L. 2022. Accessed August 22, 2023. https://www.thefirstmile.co.uk/
Blackburn, J. D., V. D. R. Guide, Jr, G. C. Souza, and L. N. Van the-big-picture/how-much-waste-goes-to-landfill-in-the-uk-and-why-is-
Wassenhove. 2004. “Reverse Supply Chains for Commercial Returns.” it-a-problem.
California Management Review 46 (2): 6–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/ Fleming, T., and M. Zils. 2014. “Toward a Circular Economy: Philips CEO
41166207 Frans van Houten.” Mckinsey Quarterly, Feb 1st, 2014. Accessed
Blomsma, F., and G. Brennan. 2017. “The Emergence of Circular December 6, 2022. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainabil­
Economy: A New Framing around Prolonging Resource Productivity.” ity/our-insights/toward-a-circular-economy-philips-ceo-frans-van-houten.
Journal of Industrial Ecology 21 (3): 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Gardner, J., and M. Cooper. 2003. “Strategic Supply Chain Mapping
jiec.12603 Approaches.” Journal of Business Logistics 24 (2): 37–64. https://doi.
Bocken, N. M., I. De Pauw, C. Bakker, and B. van der Grinten. 2016. org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2003.tb00045.x
“Product Design and Business Model Strategies for a Circular Geissdoerfer, M., S. N. Morioka, M. M. de Carvalho, and S. Evans. 2018.
Economy.” Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering 33 (5): “Business Models and Supply Chains for the Circular Economy.”
308–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124 Journal of Cleaner Production 190: 712–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Bocken, N., L. Strupeit, K. Whalen, and J. Nußholz. 2019. “A Review and jclepro.2018.04.159
Evaluation of Circular Business Model Innovation Tools.” Sustainability Geissdoerfer, M., P. Savaget, N. M. Bocken, and E. J. Hultink. 2017. “The
11 (8): 2210. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082210 Circular Economy–a New Sustainability Paradigm?” Journal of Cleaner
BSI. 2017. BS 8001:2017. Framework for Implementing the Principles of the Production 143: 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
Circular Economy in organizations – Guide. London, UK: The British Geng, Y., J. Sarkis, and R. Bleischwitz. 2019. “Globalize the Circular
Standards Institution. Economy.” Nature 565 (7738): 153–155. https://doi.org/10.1038/
Carter, C. R., and L. M. Ellram. 1998. “Reverse Logistics: A Review of the d41586-019-00017-z
Literature and Framework for Future Investigation.” Journal of Genovese, A., A. A. Acquaye, A. Figueroa, and S. L. Koh. 2017.
Business Logistics 19 (1): 85. “Sustainable Supply Chain Management and the Transition towards a
Chen, L. H., P. Hung, and H. W. Ma. 2020. “Integrating Circular Business Circular Economy: Evidence and Some Applications.” Omega 66: 344–
Models and Development Tools in the Circular Economy Transition
357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.015
Process: A Firm-Level Framework.” Business Strategy and the
Ghisellini, P., C. Cialani, and S. Ulgiati. 2016. “A Review on Circular
Environment 29 (5): 1887–1898. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2477
Economy: The Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of
Choi, T. M., T. C. E. Cheng, and X. Zhao. 2016. “Multi-Methodological
Environmental and Economic Systems.” Journal of Cleaner Production
Research in Operations Management.” Production and Operations
114: 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007
Management 25 (3): 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12534
Govindan, K., and M. Hasanagic. 2018. “A Systematic Review on Drivers,
Christopher, M. 2005. Logistics & Supply Chain Management: Creating
Barriers, and Practices towards Circular Economy: A Supply Chain
Value-Adding Networks, 3rd ed. Harlow, England UK: FT Prentice Hall.
Perspective.” International Journal of Production Research 56 (1–2):
Comella, P. L. 1993. “Understanding a Sham: when is Recycling,
278–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1402141
Treatment?” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 20: 415.
Guide, V. D. R., T. P. Harrison, and L. N. Van Wassenhove. 2003. “The
De Angelis, R., M. Howard, and J. Miemczyk. 2018. “Supply Chain
Challenge of Closed-Loop Supply Chains.” Interfaces 33 (6): 3–6.
Management & the Circular Economy: Towards the Circular Supply
https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.33.6.3.25182
Chain.” Production Planning & Control 29 (6): 425–437. https://doi.org/
Guide, V. D. R., and L. N. Van Wassenhove. 2009. “Or FORUM – The
10.1080/09537287.2018.1449244
Evolution of Closed-Loop Supply Chain Research.” Operations Research
Dekker, R., Fleischmann, M., Inderfurth, K., & van Wassenhove, L. N. (Eds.)
2004. Reverse Logistics: Quantitative Models for Closed-Loop Supply 57 (1): 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1080.0628
Chains. Germany: Springer-Verlag. Guldmann, E., and R. D. Huulgaard. 2020. “Barriers to Circular Business
Dey, P. K., C. Malesios, D. De, P. Budhwar, S. Chowdhury, and W. Cheffi. Model Innovation: A Multiple-Case Study.” Journal of Cleaner
2020. “Circular Economy to Enhance Sustainability of Small and Production 243 (43): 118160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.
Medium-Sized Enterprises.” Business Strategy and the Environment 29 118160
(6): 2145–2169. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2492 Gunasekaran, A., and B. Kobu. 2002. “Modelling and Analysis of Business
Dubois, A., and L. E. Gadde. 2002. “Systematic Combining: An Abductive Process Reengineering.” International Journal of Production Research
Approach to Case Research.” Journal of Business Research 55 (7): 553– 40 (11): 2521–2546. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540210132733
560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8 Haas, W., F. Krausmann, D. Wiedenhofer, C. Lauk, and A. Mayer. 2020.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” “Spaceship Earth’s Odyssey to a Circular Economy – A Century Long
The Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–550. https://doi.org/ Perspective.” Resources, Conservation & Recycling 163: 105076. https://
10.2307/258557 doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105076
Eisenhardt, K. M., and M. E. Graebner. 2007. “Theory Building from Cases: Hargroves, K., and M. Smith. 2005. The Natural Advantage of Nations:
Opportunities and Challenges.” Academy of Management Journal 50 Business Opportunities, Innovation and Governance in the 21st Century.
(1): 25–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888 London: Earthscan.
EC. 2019. “First Circular Economy Action Plan. European Commission Haupt, M., and M. Zschokke. 2017. “How Can LCA Support the Circular
Document.” https://ec.europa.eu/environment/topics/circular-econ­ Economy? 63rd Discussion Forum on LCA, Zurich, Switzerland.” The
omy/first-circular-economy-action-plan. Accessed August 2, 2021. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 22 (5): 832–837. https://
EMF. 2013. “Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and Business doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1267-1
Rationale for an Accelerated Transition.” Cowes, UK: Ellen MacArthur Hawken, P., A. Lovins, and L. H. Lovins. 1999. Natural Capitalism: Creating
Foundation. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org. the Next Industrial Revolution. London: Earthscan.
EMF. 2014. Towards the Circular Economy: Accelerating the Scale up across Hellweg, S., and L. M. Canals. 2014. “Emerging Approaches, Challenges &
Global Supply Chains. Cowes, UK: EMF. Opportunities in Life Cycle Assessment.” Science 344 (6188): 1109–
EMF. 2015a. Growth within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive 1113. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248361
Europe. Cowes, UK: EMF. Henderson, R. 2021. “Innovation in the 21st Century: architectural
EMF. 2015b. Circularity Indicators: An Approach to Measuring Circularity. Change, Purpose, and the Challenges of Our Time.” Management
Cowes, UK: EMF. Science 67 (9): 5479–5488. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3746
18 M. ZILS ET AL.

Hines, P., and N. Rich. 1997. “The Seven Value Stream Mapping Tools.” Kov�acs, G., and K. M. Spens. 2005. “Abductive Reasoning in Logistics
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 17 (1): Research.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
46–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579710157989 Management 35 (2): 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1108/
Hopkinson, P., M. Zils, P. Hawkins, and S. Roper. 2018. “Managing a 09600030510590318
Complex Global Circular Economy Business Model: opportunities and Langley, A. 1999. “Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data.” The
Challenges.” California Management Review 60 (3): 71–94. https://doi. Academy of Management Review 24 (4): 691–710. https://doi.org/10.
org/10.1177/0008125618764692 2307/259349
Hopkinson, P., R. De Angelis, and M. Zils. 2020. “Systemic Building Blocks Lieder, M., and A. Rashid. 2016. “Towards Circular Economy
for Creating and Capturing Value from Circular Economy.” Resources, Implementation: A Comprehensive Review in Context of
Conservation and Recycling 155: 104672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Manufacturing Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production 115: 36–51.
resconrec.2019.104672 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042
Hosoda, T., S. M. Disney, and L. Zhou. 2021. “The Yield Rate Paradox in Linder, M., and M. Williander. 2017. “Circular Business Model Innovation:
Closed-Loop Supply Chains.” International Journal of Production inherent Uncertainties.” Business Strategy and the Environment 26 (2):
Economics 239: 108187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108187 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1906
Howard, M., P. Hopkinson, and J. Miemczyk. 2019. “The Regenerative L€
uscher, L. S., and M. W. Lewis. 2008. “Organizational Change and
Supply Chain: A Framework for Developing Circular Economy Managerial Sensemaking: Working through Paradox.” Academy of
Indicators.” International Journal of Production Research 57 (23): 7300– Management Journal 51 (2): 221–240. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.
7318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1524166 2008.31767217
Howard, M., J. Miemczyk, M. Lewis, and A. Brandon-Jones. 2007. Lu, H., G. Zhao, and S. Liu. 2022. “Integrating Circular Economy and
“Implementing Supply Practice at Bridgend Engine Plant: The Industry 4.0 for Sustainable Supply Chain Management: A Dynamic
Influence of Institutional & Strategic Choice Perspectives.” Capability View.” Production Planning & Control 2022: 1–17. https://
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27 (7): doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2022.2063198
754–776. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710757090 Lysaght, O., E. K. Khedmati Morasae, M. Zils, and P. Hopkinson. 2022. “A
ISO. 2006. Environmental management – ISO 14040 Life Cycle Assessment Guide to Public Data Resources for a Circular Economy Modelling &
– Principles and Framework. Geneva: International Organisation for Measurement Framework.” CE-Hub Technical Report. Accessed
Standardisation. December 6, 2022.https://ce-hub.org/knowledge-hub/ce-hub-tech­
Jabbour, C. J. C., A. B. L. de Sousa, J. Sarkis, and M. Godinho Filho. 2019. nical-report-a-guide-to-public-data-resources-for-a-circular-economy-
“Unlocking the Circular Economy through New Business Models modelling-and-measurement-framework/.
Based on Large-Scale Data: An Integrative Framework & Research Mangla, S. K., S. Luthra, N. Mishra, A. Singh, N. P. Rana, M. Dora, and Y.
Agenda.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 144: 546–552. Dwivedi. 2018. “Barriers to Effective Circular Supply Chain
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.010 Management in a Developing Country Context.” Production Planning
Jakhar, S. K., S. K. Mangla, S. Luthra, and S. Kusi-Sarpong. 2019. “When & Control 29 (6): 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.
Stakeholder Pressure Drives the Circular Economy.” Management 1449265
Decision 57 (4): 904–920. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2018-0990 Manning, K. 1997. “Authenticity in Constructivist Inquiry: Methodological
Jiao, W., and F. Boons. 2017. “Policy Durability of Circular Economy in Considerations without Prescription.” Qualitative Inquiry 3 (1): 93–115.
China: A Process Analysis of Policy Translation.” Resources, https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049700300105
Conservation and Recycling 117: 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Marrucci, L., T. Daddi, and F. Iraldo. 2019. “The Integration of Circular
resconrec.2015.10.010 Economy with Sustainable Consumption & Production Tools:
Jick, T. D. 1979. “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda.” Journal of Cleaner
Triangulation in Action.” Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (4): 602– Production 240: 118268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.
611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392366 118268
Kalmykova, Y., M. Sadagopan, and L. Rosado. 2018. “Circular economy – Masi, D., V. Kumar, J. A. Garza-Reyes, and J. Godsell. 2018. “Towards a
From Review of Theories and Practices to Development of More Circular Economy: exploring the Awareness, Practices, and
Implementation Tools.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 135: Barriers from a Focal Firm Perspective.” Production Planning &
190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.034 Control 29 (6): 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.
Koh, S. L., A. Gunasekaran, J. Morris, R. Obayi, and S. M. Ebrahimi. 2017. 1449246
“Conceptualizing a Circular Framework of Supply Chain Resource Mestre, A., and T. Cooper. 2017. “Circular Product Design. A Multiple
Sustainability.” International Journal of Operations & Production Loops Life Cycle Design Approach for the Circular Economy.” The
Management 37 (10): 1520–1540. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02- Design Journal 20 (sup1): S1620–S1635. https://doi.org/10.1080/
2016-0078 14606925.2017.1352686
King, A. A., and M. J. Lenox. 2009. “Lean and Green? An Empirical Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An
Examination of the Relationship between Lean Production and Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Environmental Performance.” Production and Operations Management Mishra, J. L., P. G. Hopkinson, and G. Tidridge. 2018. “Value Creation
10 (3): 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2001.tb00373.x from Circular Economy-Led Closed Loop Supply Chains: A Case Study
Kivimaa, P., and F. Kern. 2016. “Creative Destruction or Mere Niche of Fast-Moving Consumer Goods.” Production Planning & Control 29
Support? Innovation Policy Mixes for Sustainability Transitions.” (6): 509–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1449245
Research Policy 45 (1): 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015. Mollenkopf, D. A., R. Frankel, and I. Russo. 2011. “Creating Value through
09.008 Returns Management: Exploring the Marketing-Operations Interface.”
Kirchherr, J., D. Reike, and M. Hekkert. 2017. “Conceptualizing the Journal of Operations Management 29 (5): 391–403. https://doi.org/10.
Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions.” Resources, 1016/j.jom.2010.11.004
Conservation & Recycling 127: 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Mollenkopf, D., H. Stolze, W. L. Tate, and M. Ueltschy. 2010. “Green,
resconrec.2017.09.005 Lean, & Global Supply Chains.” International Journal of Physical
Kouhizadeh, M., Q. Zhu, and J. Sarkis. 2020. “Blockchain and the Circular Distribution & Logistics Management 40 (1/2): 14–41. https://doi.org/
Economy: potential Tensions and Critical Reflections from Practice.” 10.1108/09600031011018028
Production Planning & Control 31 (11-12): 950–966. https://doi.org/10. Moric, I., J. � - okovi�c, S. Pekovi�c, and D
S. Jovanovi�c, R. D - . Perovi�c. 2020.
1080/09537287.2019.1695925 “The Effect of Phases of the Adoption of the Circular Economy on
Kov�acs, G., M. Kuula, S. Seuring, and C. Blome. 2020. “Operations Adding Firm Performance: evidence from 28 EU Countries.” Sustainability 12
Value to Society.” International Journal of Operations & Production (6): 2557. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062557
Management 40 (9): 1293–1300. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09- N€aslund, D., R. Kale, and A. Paulraj. 2010. “Action Research in Supply
2020-832 Chain Management—a Framework for Relevant and Rigorous
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 19

Research.” Journal of Business Logistics 31 (2): 331–355. https://doi.org/ Singhal, S., and A. Kapur. 2002. “Industrial Estate Planning and
10.1002/j.2158-1592.2010.tb00155.x Management in India – An Integrated Approach towards Industrial
Niero, M., and P. P. Kalbar. 2019. “Coupling Material Circularity Indicators Ecology.” Journal of Environmental Management 66 (1): 19–29. https://
and Life Cycle Based Indicators: A Proposal to Advance the doi.org/10.1006/jema.2002.0571
Assessment of Circular Economy Strategies at the Product Level.” Spicer, A. J., and M. R. Johnson. 2004. “Third-Party Demanufacturing as a
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 140: 305–312. https://doi.org/10. Solution for Extended Producer Responsibility.” Journal of Cleaner
1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.002 Production 12 (1): 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00182-8
OECD. 2004. Recommendation of the Council on Material Flows and Stuart, I., D. McCutcheon, R. Handfield, R. McLachlin, and D. Samson.
Resource Productivity. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 2002. “Effective Case Research in Operations Management: A Process
Development. https://www.oecd.org/env. Perspective.” Journal of Operations Management 20 (5): 419–433.
Okorie, O., F. Charnley, J. Russell, A. Tiwari, and M. Moreno. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00022-0
“Circular Business Models in High Value Manufacturing: Five Industry de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., J. V. R. Luiz, O. R. Luiz, C. J. C. Jabbour, N. O.
Cases to Bridge Theory and Practice.” Business Strategy & the Ndubisi, J. H. C. de Oliveira, and F. H. Junior. 2019. “Circular Economy
Environment. Business Models and Operations Management.” Journal of Cleaner
Oliva, R., and R. Kallenberg. 2003. “Managing the Transition from Products Production 235: 1525–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.
to Services.” International Journal of Service Industry Management 14 (2): 349
160–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230310474138 de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., C. J. C. Jabbour, M. Godinho Filho, and D.
Osterwalder, A., and Y. Pigneur. 2010. Business Model Generation: A Roubaud. 2018. “Industry 4.0 and the Circular Economy: A Proposed
Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. New Research Agenda and Original Roadmap for Sustainable Operations.”
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Annals of Operations Research 270 (1-2): 273–286. https://doi.org/10.
Pagell, M., and Z. Wu. 2009. “Building a More Complete Theory of 1007/s10479-018-2772-8
Sustainable Supply Chain Management Using Case Studies of 10 Srai, J. S., N. Tsolakis, M. Kumar, and W. Bam. 2018. “Circular Supply
Exemplars.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 45 (2): 37–56. Chains and Renewable Chemical Feedstocks: A Network Configuration
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2009.03162.x Analysis Framework.” Production Planning & Control 29 (6): 464–482.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. “Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1449263
and Practice.” Organization Science 1 (3): 267–292. https://doi.org/10. Stahel, W. R. 2016. “Circular Economy: A New Relationship with Our
1287/orsc.1.3.267 Goods and Materials Would save Resources and Energy and Create
Quinn, J., T. Doorley, and P. Paquette. 1990. “Beyond Products: Service- Local Jobs, Explains.” Nature 531 (7595): 435–438. https://doi.org/10.
Based Strategy.” Harvard Business Review, March/April, 58–67. 1038/531435a
Reike, D., W. J. Vermeulen, and S. Witjes. 2018. “The Circular Economy: Su, B., A. Heshmati, Y. Geng, and X. Yu. 2013. “A Review of the Circular
new or Refurbished as CE 3.0? Exploring Controversies in the Economy in China: moving from Rhetoric to Implementation.” Journal
Conceptualization of the Circular Economy through a Focus on of Cleaner Production 42: 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
History and Resource Value Retention Options.” Resources, 2012.11.020
Conservation & Recycling 135: 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Subramanian, N., A. Gunasekaran, L. Wu, and T. Shen. 2019. “Role of
resconrec.2017.08.027 Traditional Chinese Philosophies and New Product Development
Rigamonti, L., A. Falbo, L. Zampori, and S. Sala. 2017. “Supporting a under Circular Economy in Private Manufacturing Enterprise
Transition towards Sustainable Circular Economy: LCA for the Performance.” International Journal of Production Research 57 (23):
Recovery of Electric and Electronic Waste.” The International Journal of 7219–7234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1530467
Life Cycle Assessment 22 (8): 1278–1287. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Susanty, A., B. Tjahjono, and R. E. Sulistyani. 2020. “An Investigation into
s11367-016-1231-5 Circular Economy Practices in the Traditional Wooden Furniture
Rogers, D. S., and R. Tibben-Lembke. 2001. “An Examination of Reverse Industry.” Production Planning & Control 31 (16): 1336–1348. https://
Logistics Practices.” Journal of Business Logistics 22 (2): 129–148. doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1707322
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2001.tb00007.x Touboulic, A., and H. Walker. 2015. “Love Me, Love Me Not: A Nuanced
Rother, M., and J. Shook. 1988. Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to View on Collaboration in Sustainable Supply Chains.” Journal of
Create Value and Eliminate Muda. Cambridge, MA: The Lean Enterprise Purchasing and Supply Management 21 (3): 178–191. https://doi.org/
Institute. 10.1016/j.pursup.2015.05.001
Santibanez Gonzalez, E., L. Koh, and J. Leung. 2019. “Editorial to the Toyasaki, F., T. Boyaci, and V. Verter. 2011. “An Analysis of Monopolistic
Special issue – Towards a Circular Economy Production System: trends and Competitive Take-Back Schemes for WEEE Recycling.” Production
and Challenges for Operations Management.” International Journal of and Operations Management 20 (6): 805–823. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
Production Research 57 (23): 7209–7218. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1937-5956.2010.01207.x
00207543.2019.1656844 UKRI. 2021. “UK Research & Innovation National Interdisciplinary Circular
Scheepens, A. E., J. G. Vogtl€ander, and J. C. Brezet. 2016. “Two Life Cycle Economy Research.” Accessed August 13, 2015. https://ce-hub.org.
Assessment Based Methods to Analyse and Design Complex Circular Vargo, S. L., H. Wieland, and M. A. Akaka. 2015. “Innovation through
Economy Systems.” Journal of Cleaner Production 114: 257–268. Institutionalization: A Service Ecosystems Perspective.” Industrial
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.075 Marketing Management 44: 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmar­
Schro€der, P., A. Lemille, and P. Desmond. 2020. “Making the Circular man.2014.10.008
Economy Work for Human Development.” Resources, Conservation Velenturf, A. P., and P. Purnell. 2021. “Principles for a Sustainable Circular
and Recycling 156: 104686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020. Economy.” Sustainable Production and Consumption 27: 1437–1457.
104686 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.018
Sehnem, S., N. O. Ndubisi, D. Preschlak, R. J. Bernardy, and S. Santos Villena, V. H., M. Wilhelm, and C. Y. Xiao. 2020. “Untangling Drivers for
Junior. 2020. “Circular Economy in the Wine Chain Production: Supplier Environmental and Social Responsibility: An Investigation in
Maturity, Challenges, and Lessons from an Emerging Economy Philips Lighting’s Chinese Supply Chain.” Journal of Operations
Perspective.” Production Planning & Control 31 (11–12): 1014–1034. Management 2020: 1–35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1695914 Virtanen, M., K. Manskinen, V. Uusitalo, J. Syv€anne, and K. Cura. 2019.
Seuring, S. 2004. “Industrial Ecology, Life Cycles, Supply Chains: differen­ “Regional Material Flow Tools to Promote Circular Economy.” Journal
ces and Interrelations.” Business Strategy and the Environment 13 (5): of Cleaner Production 235: 1020–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
306–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.418 2019.06.326
20 M. ZILS ET AL.

Vlajic, J. V., R. Mijailovic, and M. Bogdanova. 2018. “Creating Loops with WRAP. 2014. Innovative Business Services Model. https://www.wrap.org.
Value Recovery: empirical Study of Fresh Food Supply Chains.” uk/taking-action/industry-action-plans.
Production Planning & Control 29 (6): 522–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Wu, Z., and F. Jia. 2018. “Toward a Theory of Supply Chain Fields–
09537287.2018.1449264 Understanding the Institutional Process of Supply Chain Localization.”
Vlachos, D., P. Georgiadis, and E. Iakovou. 2007. “A System Dynamics Journal of Operations Management 58–59 (1): 27–41. https://doi.org/
Model for Dynamic Capacity Planning of Remanufacturing in Closed-
10.1016/j.jom.2018.03.002
Loop Supply Chains.” Computers & Operations Research 34 (2): 367– Yin, R. 1994. Case Study Research: design and Methods (2nd ed.).
394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2005.03.005
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Voss, C. 2010. “Case Research in Operations Management.” In
Zhu, Q., J. Sarkis, and K. H. Lai. 2008. “Green Supply Chain Management
Researching Operations Management, 176–209. UK: Routledge.
van Loon, P., and L. N. Van Wassenhove. 2020. “Transition to the Circular Implications for ‘Closing the Loop.” Transportation Research Part E 44
Economy: The Story of Four Case Companies.” International Journal of (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2006.06.003
Production Research 58 (11): 3415–3422. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Zils, M., P. Hopkinson, G. Bridge, and W. Faigen. 2022. “Utility Trade
00207543.2020.1748907 Network for Data Traceability and Transparency in Circular Economy –
Womack, J. P., and D. T. Jones. 1996. Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and A Rare Earth Element Permanent Magnet Test Case.” Unpublished
Create Wealth in Your Corporation. Simon and Schuster: UK. report for the Office for National Statistics.