Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Resources,
Conservation & Recycling or its open access mirror
Manuscript Draft
Manuscript Number:
Title: Circular business models and transition tools: A systematic
literature review
Article Type: Full Length Article
Corresponding Author: Dr. Gabriela Vacekova,
Corresponding Author's Institution:
First Author: Alena Klapalová
Order of Authors: Alena Klapalová; Michal Placek; Gabriela Vacekova;
Radoslav Skapa; Choirul Anam
Abstract: This article maps the current knowledge of circular business
models and transition tools. To achieve this purpose, it uses a
systematic literature review (SLR) to synthesise information from several
original studies and systematise the findings. SLR was also used to
examine concepts that could be interpreted as synonyms for the main idea;
it would be possible to add other synonyms to the list, but initial
attempts did not help to increase the findings already identified. Case
studies testing some or most of the tools indicate that the authors are
cautious, that the few larger companies that focus on the circular
economy are unknown to the authors, or that the authors wish to take care
of their own transition. The SLR revealed that 'regeneration' and
'exchange' are often not compatible with the tools from the ReSOLVE
framework principles. Essentially, there are no rules and only a few
approaches or models are available.
Suggested Reviewers: Cristina Sousa
cristina.sousa@iscte-iul.pt
Frantisek Ochrana
frantisek.ochrana@fsv.cuni.cz
Włodzimierz Sroka
WSroka@wsb.edu.pl
Research Data Related to this Submission
--------------------------------------------------
There are no linked research data sets for this submission. The following
reason is given:
Data will be made available on request
Circular business models and transition tools: A systematic literature review1
Alena Klapalováa
, Michal Plačekb
, Radoslav Škapaa
, Gabriela Vacekováa
, Choirul Anamb
2
a
Faculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk University, Lipová 41a, 602 00 Brno,3
Czech Republic4
b
Faculty of Social Science, Charles University, Smetanovo nábř. 6, 110 00 Staré Město,5
Czech Republic6
7
Abstract8
This article maps the current knowledge of circular business models and transition tools. To9
achieve this purpose, it uses a systematic literature review (SLR) to synthesise information10
from several original studies and systematise the findings. SLR was also used to examine11
concepts that could be interpreted as synonyms for the main idea; it would be possible to add12
other synonyms to the list, but initial attempts did not help to increase the findings already13
identified. Case studies testing some or most of the tools indicate that the authors are cautious,14
that the few larger companies that focus on the circular economy are unknown to the authors,15
or that the authors wish to take care of their own transition. The SLR revealed that16
‘regeneration’ and ‘exchange’ are often not compatible with the tools from the ReSOLVE17
framework principles. Essentially, there are no rules and only a few approaches or models are18
available.19
20
Keywords: circular business model; circular economy; business model; systematic literature21
review; ReSOLVE framework22
23
1. Introduction24
Manuscript
Click here to download Manuscript: Circular-business-model_RCRx.docx Click here to view linked References
The circular economy (CE) clearly presents many challenges to traditional linear business25
models. The added focus on sustainability does not always help to solve the problems that the26
CE aims to address. A conceptualisation of the circular business model (CBM) is lacking in27
the academic literature. In fact, few authors have provided a clear CBM concept. Linder and28
Williander (2017, p. 2) defined a CBM as ‘a business model in which the conceptual logic for29
value creation is based on utilizing the economic value retained in products after use in the30
production of new offerings.’ Thus, a CBM implies a return flow to the producer from users,31
though there can be intermediaries between the two parties. The term CBM, therefore,32
overlaps with the concept of closed-loop supply chains, and always involves some ‘recycling’33
principles or strategies.34
Geissdoerfer et al. (2018) identified the CBM as a subcategory of the sustainable business35
model and characterised CBMs as creating sustainable value, employing proactive multi-36
stakeholder management, and having a long-term perspective, as well as closing, slowing,37
narrowing, intensifying, and dematerialising resource loops. Geissdoerfer et al. (2017)38
searched for similarities and differences between sustainability and the CE. They also39
summarised warnings about the negative impacts of the CE: a) circular systems will incur40
specific costs; b) the necessity of coping with the technical impossibility of really closing the41
circle; and c) recycling will be accompanied by growing demands on energy; the negative42
impact of this demand will be higher, especially in the form of the greenhouse gas emissions,43
than the overall environmental effect of acquiring the material from conventional sources44
such as mining.45
Despite the lack of conceptualisation, the topic of CBM has attracted scholarly attention, since46
it has become clear that the shift to a CE demands an understanding of how companies can47
introduce circularity into their business models (Lewandowski, 2016). This means a change in48
several building blocks of a company’s business model, particularly value propositions,49
channels, resources, and activities; it may mean changes in the whole model as well as the50
development of a new one(s). To this point, Nuβholz (2017) argued that ‘the key difference of51
circular business model elements, compared to linear ones, appears to be the embeddedness of52
a circular strategy in the offer, which can alter material flows.’53
The implementation of CE principles would affect all the building blocks of the business54
model framework, since CE principles change the logic behind value creation, delivery, and55
capture. Other than remanufacturing and recycling and other value recovery practices (e.g.56
Verstrepen et al., 2007), four terms are most often associated with the CE and CBM. To a57
certain extent, they reflect the contents of the ReSOLVE framework: product service systems58
(PSS), consumer (customer) acceptance, sharing (and collaborative economy), and internet-59
of-things (IoT) or industry 4.0. These terms reflect, more or less, the specific features of60
CBMs. There are many interdependencies among the contents of those terms; however, they61
can exist independently in practice. For instance, Kjaer et al. (2018, p. 666) argued that ‘PSS62
are often mentioned as a means to enable a transition from a linear to a circular economy.’63
The provision of services within PSS is more and more dependent on the different64
functionalities enabled by industry 4.0 and IoT (Bressanelli et al., 2017). Use-oriented PSSs65
are often related to sharing and collaboration business models (Annarelli et al., 2016).66
The main goal of this article is to map the current knowledge about CBMs and tools for the67
transition. To achieve this goal, we used a systematic literature review (SLR) and68
systematised the results according to several sets of criteria: business model content, i.e.69
components or elements of business models; the ReSOLVE framework combined with six70
business strategies for slowing and closing loops, as suggested by Bocken et al. (2016), and71
the strategy for narrowing the loops; and extended boundaries of analysis and adapted72
approach types and types of work (Pieroni et al., 2019).73
2. Existing reviews on circular business models and tools for the transition74
A comprehensive review aiming to systematise the state-of-the-art of available approaches75
supporting a circular-oriented or sustainability-oriented business model innovation process76
was presented by Pieroni et al. (2019). The approaches are systematised in three streams. The77
first stream, based on Teece’s dynamic capabilities-based view, is divided into three78
categories: (1) sensing: approaches that help to identify opportunities and generate new79
business model ideas; (2) seizing: approaches that systematically design and test new business80
model concepts or configurations; and (3) transforming: approaches that help to build new81
competencies and implement organisational renewal. The second stream, based on three82
business model innovation characteristics, includes boundaries of analysis (organisational,83
inter-organisational, and societal), abstraction level (aggregated, moderated aggregated, and84
details), and time-related view (static and dynamic). The third stream, based on the approach85
type, covers conceptual framework, guideline manuals, process model, cards/serious game,86
visualisation tools, and simulator/software.87
Singh et al. (2019) identified 145 best practices or approaches to resource efficiency and the88
CE in order to reduce energy and material demand in the product sectors. Approaches include89
durable product design, enhanced repair and upgrade services, and product take-back models;90
the approaches provide important insights into planning more circular business to resource91
efficiency. Lieder and Rashid (2016) summarise the outcomes of their review of the CE92
categorised according to the three perspectives: resource scarcity, environmental impact, and93
economic benefits. Frameworks, tools, models, and methods for decision making according to94
these perspectives and selected based on their possible applicability for the transition and shift95
towards the CE, in general, are introduced in Table 1. They differ in depth and breadth, focus,96
and areas of interest, and they range from very general and probably rather abstract to very97
narrow and specific.98
Pieroni et al. (2018) conducted a comprehensive review of the literature with the purpose of99
exploring the existing methods aimed at supporting the development of CBMs and their level100
of consideration of and/or integration with product design processes. They identified 10101
methods that fulfil more or less the integration of CBM development and product design. The102
authors concluded that the weaknesses of the methods from the list reside in their relatively103
high levels of abstraction, a lack of ‘how-to’ guidance or methodological support, and the lack104
of a more holistic perspective and a connection to commercialisation and operationalisation.105
3. Methodology106
According to Denyer and Tranfield (2009, p. 672), SLR is ‘a specific methodology that107
locates existing studies, selects and evaluates contributions, analyses and synthesizes data,108
and reports the evidence in such a way that allows reasonably clear conclusions to be reached109
about what is and is not known.’ SLR comprehensively identifies, appraises, and synthesises110
all the relevant studies on a specific topic and helps to identify gaps and diversity in current111
research (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006; Correia et al., 2017). Essentially, SLR aims to112
synthesise the knowledge from multiple original studies.113
No unified process for SLR exists; authors differ in the number of steps and in the details of114
each step. For this paper, based on Correia et al. (2017) we defined five phases: (1) problem115
formulation and question identification; (2) literature search; (3) evaluation of research; (4)116
research analysis and interpretation; and (5) presentation of results. This set of phases117
represents a process that is replicable, transparent, objective, unbiased, and rigorous.118
The term ‘tools’ is used in this text for simplification when dealing with the purpose of the119
SLR. The SLR concerns tools that may help companies, and specifically both demonstrators,120
in their move towards CBM. As Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) noted in their comparison of121
sustainability and CE, no clear and unified opinion on a clear dividing line between these two122
approaches exists; nevertheless this report concentrates on the tools that were invented,123
developed, and created primarily for the CE.124
This approach enables a focus on the potential specificities of the tools. However, it also can125
eliminate some important and beneficial approaches that have not been presented as more126
general or applicable also for the CE. Thus this SLR considers tools and we also searched for127
the concepts that can be understood as synonyms for the core idea. This means that128
frameworks, methods, models and modelling, approaches, strategies, schemes, patterns, and129
roadmaps entered the review. We are aware that even more synonyms could be added to the130
list, such as tactics, ways, procedures, mechanisms, and practices, but our initial attempts did131
not expand the existing results.132
We used innovation and change as well as transformation, transition, shift, and adaptation in133
the search in order to cover as many as possible terms for the process from an existing134
business model to a circular one or to a more circular one. We omitted the term improvement,135
which – despite its importance – does not reflect the real procedural needs of both136
demonstrators. Improvement is a natural part of most of the tools we detected. For137
simplification, we use the term transition to represents all possible synonyms in the following138
text.139
3.1. All synonyms have been taken into account during the documents review140
There are several reasons that an SLR on the tools for companies that are moving towards a141
CE is needed. First, the tools that are available for the change or innovation of linear business142
models may have limited value for the far more complex solutions in the CE (Nuβholz, 2017).143
Second, even recent literature indicates and stresses the lack of tools that can either support144
particularly large and traditional manufacturing businesses in increasing their understanding145
of the consequences of CE business model transitions (Lieder et al., 2017) or enable and146
accelerate transition as well as identify and tap the potentials of transition at the company,147
inter-company, and/or whole network level (Lieder and Rashid, 2016; Leising et al., 2018).148
The body of knowledge about tools for the transition of business models towards circularity is149
immature; it is mostly conceptual and covers individual company business models, mostly150
niche market pioneers and rarely (if at all) mass-market incumbents and relevant network151
stakeholders of the whole ecosystem (Diaz Lopez et al., 2019; Parida and Wincent, 2019).152
Parida and Wincent (2019) also highlighted that most existing research focuses on the153
business model itself rather than on the process of transformation and offers a static view of a154
reality that is actually very complex and dynamic.155
One supporting argument may be that the existing literature on the CE has been developed156
outside of management and organisational theory (Lahti et al., 2018). However, management157
and organisational theory is built largely on the investigation of the practices (of the158
management processes, managerial mindset, cognitive schemes, and conceptual159
representations); very few companies have yet managed the transformation towards a circular160
business (Lieder and Rashid, 2016; Lahti et al., 2018; Parida and Wincent, 2019).161
Finally, there has not been an SLR mapping the tools for the transition, transformation, or162
adaptation of business models for the CE. Table 2 show the strings used for the search in three163
databases (Web of Science – WoS, Scopus, and Proquest), the types of documents, and the164
results.165
The same search string was used in Google Scholar. The search revealed 47,000 documents166
(from this database, only the first 100 documents were analysed for the purposes of this167
review). The first screening was based on the titles, abstracts, and keywords to assess the168
compliance with the research aim and research question. After that screening, 85 documents169
from WoS and Scopus remained for further analysis, but 8 documents had to be excluded170
because the text was not available. In the next step, 77 documents were subjected to the171
content analysis of the full text. From Proquest, 22 unique documents enriched the outputs of172
the initial review of titles, keywords, and abstracts. Of those 22 documents, 12 documents173
were added into the sample for the next step. The Google Scholar search generated 11174
documents; however, after the abstract scanning, only 6 remained for the whole text review.175
During the review of the documents, a snowball technique was adopted; through the citations176
made by the authors of the included studies, a further 9 documents were added to the final177
sample. This number includes theses and tools designed by some organisations and178
institutions.179
Finally, 104 documents were examined thoroughly in accordance with the research purpose.180
This examination helped to exclude 69 documents that – despite promising abstracts, titles,181
and keywords – were irrelevant for the purpose of the SLR, because they did not contain any182
transition tools, or the tools were extremely simple, or the document quality was rather low,183
or their character was too speculative and the reasoning was insufficiently relevant. In the184
end, only 35 documents and almost all of the academic articles involved, to some extent, tools185
that we considered relevant. This finding confirms conclusions from the literature about a186
sizable deficiency in the methodological support for CE transition. During the SLR, additional187
articles were found in the literature for designing CBMs that contained a review of existing188
tools. The next subchapter introduces this overview briefly.189
4. Results of systematic literature review190
In order to provide an empirical illustration of our proposed methodology, we arranged the191
following classification according to the business model components: value proposition (VP),192
customer/stakeholder segment (C/SS), customer/stakeholder relationships (C/SR), channels193
(CH), key processes (KP), key resources (KR), key partners (KP), cost structure and negative194
impacts (CS+NI), revenue streams and positive impacts (RS+PI), or whole model (WM).195
These classifications help to understand the importance of the specific features of the196
components and the ways they can be evaluated, changed, created, designed, or developed as197
new features into a circular model with concrete tool for CBM innovation.198
4.1. Tools for transition199
The ReSOLVE framework, circular loops, and business strategies help to classify tools to be200
adopted as suitable for the specific circular business target or orientation. The following201
abbreviations will be used in the text: regenerate (R), share (S), optimise (O), loop (L),202
virtualise (V) and exchange (E); and slowing and specific strategies/value recovery processes203
for slowing (Sl –xxx), closing (C -xxx), and narrowing (N). The extended boundaries204
represent specific business functions (BF), organisation (O), network (N), (eco)system (eS)205
and society (S) and assigning the ‘tool’ to some of these categories makes it possible to see206
the level of complexity regarding the organisation of processes within a circular business.207
The last approach types are adapted into the: conceptual framework (CF), conceptual method208
(CM), guideline (G), process (P), process model/method (PM), game (Gm), visualisation tool209
(VT), software simulation (SS), and (statistical) mathematical modelling (MM). The role of210
this categorisation is only in offering a better overview and for the evaluation of the211
applicability in concrete situations (considering, for instance, time or competencies or other212
available resources). Type of work is purely theoretical (conceptual) (T), theoretical and213
tested in ‘laboratory conditions’ (TTL), theoretical and tested or verified in a real environment214
(TTR). No purely empirical tool was found in the literature.215
The last criterion evaluates the maturity of the tool based on the practical application and216
verification. We use a scale from 1 to 5 from the least mature (1) to the most mature tool (5),217
being fully aware of the very subjective nature of the evaluation. Abbreviations are shown in218
brackets to mean that their indication is not of 100% value. Most of the existing tools are219
conceptual, and they exist in the form of a proposal, despite the fact that some of them have220
been tested in a ‘laboratory’ environment or during interviews with practitioners. Only a few221
were tested in a more complex form. The results are shown in Table 3.222
4.2. Value proposition (VP)223
The checklist can be used to evaluate the promise fulfilment and relationship maintenance224
with consumers in the CE. The main drivers (main factors that influence the behaviour of225
three CE solutions) can serve as a checklist for the design of the value proposition of the226
access-based PSS and for the consumer segmentation (Camacho-Otero et al., 2018). The227
framework can be applied at multiple points while designing new products ‘to increase the228
likelihood that “emotion building” features are integrated into an end product’ and so to229
support prolonging the life of products instead of promoting or being passive within a230
throwaway society (Haines-Gadd et al., 2018). With nine themes, the authors developed 38231
strategies incorporated into the product design.232
A choice-based method conjoint analysis is beneficial for breaking down CE value233
propositions and identifying the extent to which particular service-related attributes and234
product-related attributes contribute to overall customer utility (Lieder et al., 2018). The235
framework that makes it possible to design products and services to encourage desired236
circular behaviours is based on the design for behaviour change and the behaviour change237
wheel (Wastling et al., 2017).238
4.3. Customer/stakeholder segment (C/SS)239
The checklist of the main factors that influence perception and acceptance of the use of loop240
solutions using what is used in the VP component (Camacho-Otero et al., 2018). Emotional241
Durability Design Nine uses the same framework with VP applicable for characterising242
segments (Haines-Gadd et al., 2018).243
4.4. Customer/stakeholder relationship (C/SR)244
The checklist used in VP can also be used to evaluate the promise fulfilment and relationship245
maintenance with consumers in the CE (especially in the access-based PSS) (Camacho-Otero246
et al., 2018). Emotional Durability Design Nine with VP is applicable for building and247
maintaining relationships (Haines-Gadd et al., 2018). The model may identify and influence248
‘pro-circular behaviours’ of customers (Muranko et al., 2018).249
This tool is for creating future product strategies for CE PSS. The tool visualises the points250
within a product’s lifecycle at which stakeholders are able to intervene in the product’s251
expected journey. CIM contains concentric rings that make it possible to indicate the degree252
to which an organisation is able to control consumer interventions, with decreasing ability253
moving away from the centre of the map. At the narrowest level of detail, CIM offers 18254
discrete phases of intervention. The tool can also be used for portraying how a particular255
product lifecycle moves in and out of an organisation’s control (Sinclair et al., 2018).256
4.5. Key resources (KR)257
Asif et al. (2018) proposed an infrastructure for access-based PSS for the washing machine258
that incorporates various features and properties (e.g. predictive maintenance, ticketing, etc.).259
A simple framework/checklist for evaluating two categories of digital technologies (IoT and260
big data and analytics) as the enablers of increasing resource efficiencies, extending the261
lifespan and closing the loop (Bressanelli et al., 2018). The Circular Material Library should262
work as a tool to support industrial symbiosis, open to the different stakeholders and to263
promote the use of recycled materials (Virtanen et al., 2017).264
4.6. Key partners (KP)265
Franciosi et al. (2017) suggest that a periodic preventive maintenance model establishes the266
optimal maintenance period for each system component, minimising conventional,267
environmental, and social costs generated by maintenance interventions and making it268
possible to choose the most suitable parts from a sustainability perspective. A simple checklist269
with the summarised key processes enabling closing and slowing the loops (and to some270
extent also narrowing the loops) (Mestre and Cooper, 2017). This is a proposal of hybrid271
systems called an ‘Upgradable Product-Service System (Up-PSS)’ that combines272
upgradability with optimised maintenance, valorisation of end-of-life parts and with the273
servitisation of the offer. The system can be used as a checklist for practices within PSS when274
upgrading is needed and as a typology of upgrades (Pialot et al., 2017).275
4.7. Cost structure and negative impacts (CS+ NI)276
Aguilar-Hernandéz et al. (2018) explained environmentally extended input-output analysis277
(EEIOA) for circularity interventions, covering the main benefits and problems with the278
input-output analysis for four circularity scenarios and presenting the process of using this279
method for the CE. The multi-method simulation technique for the economic and280
environmental performance of the circular product system is a comprehensive agent-based281
model and a multi-method-based simulation technique that incorporates various categories of282
inputs from the external and internal environment, causalities, and inter-dependencies to283
measure and evaluate different economic and environmental dimensions of the circular284
product service system performance (Asif et al., 2016). Guidelines for the process of LCA285
consider the specificities of three different PSS. The guidelines reflect relatively detailed286
inputs and different requirements from the actors (Kjaer et al., 2018).287
This is a simple analytical tool allowing manufacturers to quickly evaluate and compare the288
potential attractiveness of a circular business model – selling and leasing. ‘The tool shows289
which parameters drive profit and TCO and permits an easy sensitivity analysis’ (van Loon et290
al., 2017). The framework consists of an environmental value propositions table (EVPT) and291
a step-by-step approach towards an evaluation process; the framework can be used for292
planning and designing new CE business models or for assessing the environmental benefits293
and the contribution to sustainability; the framework, contents of the EVPT, and the approach294
has been tested with one recycling company and two real estate companies (one is the real295
estate company Homie) (Manninen et al., 2018).296
A list of several methods and tools for measuring environmental impacts described by Pajula297
et al. (2017) includes the life cycle assessment (LCA), carbon footprint measurement, tracking298
of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the water footprint – a tool for assessing potential water-299
specific environmental impacts of water use associated with a product, process, or300
organisation, and the handprint – a measurement of the positive changes of actions and the301
beneficial impacts created within the life cycle of products, services, processes, companies,302
organisations, or individuals.303
4.8. Whole circular model (WM)304
The framework may be suitable for evaluating the transition towards circularity, as it305
considers macro, meso, and micro environments (Antikainen and Valkokari, 2016).306
According to Bocken et al. (2018), the purpose of the cycle is to help in designing or307
redesigning for any sustainability-oriented business models that utilise IoT strategies. The308
framework combines a level of control between product and user, sustainable design309
strategies, IoT strategies (capabilities), and other strategies. This is a relatively comprehensive310
tool for designing new and redesigning existing business models, both for sustainability and311
circularity (Bocken et al., 2019a). Its comprehensiveness lies in many aspects the model312
involves and in the mutual linkages.313
The framework combines four IoT strategies (monitoring, control, optimisation, and314
autonomy) connected to/focused on either user or product and other non-IoT strategies (not315
listed) with seven sustainable design strategies considering the level of control (with the user316
or product) (Bocken et al., 2019b). The roadmap contains four phases with individual317
objectives for every phase, a checklist for the important issues in every phase, and a checklist318
of the key activities and the expected outcome (Frishamar and Parida, 2019). The UIW-319
framework is used as a template for system implementations of practices to develop a product320
service system and to support a systematic adaptation to changing needs by developing321
business models and technologies to support collaborative efforts (Granholm and Grösser,322
2017).323
This is a proposal of a conceptual framework for circular business network governance with324
some roots in the balanced scorecard method (Janssen and Stel, 2017). It is a brief proposal to325
use the cascading of materials in product life management (Kalverkamp et al., 2017). The tool326
or framework consists of the following building blocks: visions, actor learning, network327
dynamics, and business model innovation. The tool is suitable for managing key processes328
and activities, key partner relationships and mutual value creation, delivery, and capture in329
inter-organisational, network, or whole social system setting (Leising et al., 2018).330
The model and tool help to identify proper marketing and pricing strategies to obtain best fit331
demand behaviour (Lieder et al., 2017). The approach integrates socio-demographic and332
buying behaviour factors of customers (relative preferences of product attribute prices,333
environmental friendliness, and service-orientation), product utility functions, social network334
structures, and inter-agent marketing communication in order to comprehensively describe335
behaviour at the individual customer level. The BECE framework is also a method and336
methodology that integrates the backcasting strategic planning approach with the process337
design in the framework of a circular economy (Mendoza et al., 2017). This means that three338
CE principles, the ReSOLVE framework with added action IMPLEMENT and developed339
individual actions with iReSOLVE, and four basic CE frameworks create the playground to340
develop a circular business model.341
Mentink (2014) suggested the method and methodology to develop a circular business model.342
Nußholz (2017) provided a circular business model mapping tool that can help: a) to identify343
which interventions are used and which are not; a holistic overview on possible interventions344
could indicate opportunities to potentially capture more of the embedded value and organise345
value-adding activities; b) to examine whether the configuration of business model elements346
is suitable for efficiently supporting the additional cycles, such as whether value propositions347
are compelling for users in additional cycles or whether key resources and capabilities are348
present to manage the different cycles; c) to unravel a larger variety of phenomena compared349
to the traditional business model canvas, e.g. key partners, costs, and revenues for each cycle;350
and d) to show interdependencies between the interventions and how shaping business model351
elements in one intervention enables value creation from other interventions.352
The process model of ecosystem transformation towards a CE paradigm contains two steps353
with individual activities: ecosystem readiness assessment and ecosystem orchestration354
mechanisms (Parida et al., 2019). The methodology includes the evaluation tool for five355
different values created (and captured) in CBM, a visual tool, and the value metric checklist.356
‘The value circle evaluation scheme assists companies in operating their CBM through an357
improved understanding of their potential to create value, from a multi-stakeholder358
perspective’ (Ritika, 2017).359
4.9. Retention streams, benefits, positive impacts360
Tools for revenue streams or benefits are almost non-existent. This might be due to the early361
stage of existing circular businesses or due to the conscious or unknown problems with362
capturing intangible benefits, which is probably more typical for circular business in the early363
period. The same situation is with segments (either customers or other relevant stakeholders).364
Only two tools fall into that component. The article by Chamberlin and Boks (2018) was not365
included as it does not contain any tool, even in the form of a checklist. ‘Soft tools’ prevail.366
This is not negative, as transformation or transition of the social system as a business requires367
soft tools.368
Aguilar-Hernandéz et al. (2018) used environmentally extended input-output analysis369
(EEIOA) for circularity interventions that can apply also for revenue streams and benefits.370
The two-stage dismantling planning method considers both preserving functional value of371
components and increasing profitability by applying suitable dismantling technologies (Cong372
et al., 2017). In this paper, disassembly is defined as preservative disassembly, which means373
that components are kept intact during disassembly.374
Nevertheless, softness could be in more harmony with more complex elaboration. As evident375
from the Table 3, frameworks represent the majority of tools and a very big share of them are376
really only outlines of real frameworks. The case studies through which some or most of the377
tools were tested show that the authors are probably cautious or those few bigger companies378
that turn their attention towards the CE are either not known to the authors or they want to379
take care for the transition themselves. In most cases, small companies and/or start-ups380
cooperated in the research.381
5. Discussion382
The overview shows that the ReSOLVE framework principles of ‘regenerate’ and ‘exchange’383
are not often equipped with tools. There are basically no guidelines and only few process384
models or methods exist. One comment should be added here – there are several tools and385
toolkits in the form of games, including online games, but these are only sporadically studied386
in the literature. There are almost no tools that could be used for the IoT or cloud387
manufacturing and IT platform based business models.388
Based on the review, several tools seem to be appropriate for both demonstrators.389
Experimentation (Bocken et al., 2019a) with relatively mature methodology is very effective390
for building and maintaining the organisational and inter-organisational culture and pro391
circular commitment and enthusiasm. Experimentation and other tools that involve more392
stakeholders and support sharing, have mutual goals and views, and open the space for mutual393
strategies play a pivotal role in any change management. The BECE framework, a process394
model for ecosystem transformation, and Emotional Durability Design Nine can also be very395
beneficial for such social movements.396
The only problem is that both demonstrators are from global mass-market manufacturing and397
existing experimentation and other tools that help to connect different stakeholders in a one-398
time window are very challenging if not impossible to apply. Simulation (mathematical or399
statistical) tools are from the other end of the spectrum, but necessary for large global400
enterprises with mass production. Another example is visualisation, especially in complex and401
dynamic environments. Visualisation tools are helpful in any case. The SLR did not detect402
any special tool for one of the demonstrators and their business, although some tools seem to403
be focused on consumers and mass consumer goods. The scarcity of tools for logistics and404
supply chains and for digital infrastructure management is somewhat surprising.405
6. Conclusion406
The review of CBMs reveals that there are still many unknown areas, or insufficiently known407
issues. Case studies mapping CBM development, implementation, and testing of large408
companies for several years are almost non-existent. There is a lack of a more complex409
understanding of how CBMs of large companies work and of the circumstances for the410
concrete functioning. The ownership question must be investigated more.411
Our results show that there is no transition device that is truly suitable for all types of testing412
instruments. More testing and developing of CBMs and tools for transition are needed. This413
paper confirms that SLR has not been able to design and test business model concepts or414
configurations systematically.415
The method we developed, based on the review of several tools, looks useful for both416
demonstrators in building and maintaining the organisational and inter-organisational culture417
and pro-circular commitment and enthusiasm. We understand that problems arise from the418
growth of mass markets worldwide, and current research and other methods that connect419
different actors are difficult to introduce.420
A new issue is also emerging for empirical streams of scientific discourse. It is necessary to421
evaluate short-term and long-term outputs, outcomes, and results of implementing circular422
business cycles and tools for transition. There are some conventional methods such as423
correlation and regression analysis using big data or large firm datasets, or new methods such424
as randomised quasi experimental design.425
Some methodological challenges must be addressed, particularly in the fields of social426
sciences such as economics and public policy. There will be a strong demand for new427
methodological approaches to correct effect estimations, solutions for endogeneity, and428
external validity problems of empirical analysis. Our review focused primarily on CBMs, but429
the issues of public policy, institutional environment, taxation, and incentive mechanism430
design remain important. Both practice and research are challenged to gain deeper and431
broader insights into the business life in a CE.432
Acknowledgement433
This work was supported by the European Research Framework H2020 research project434
Resource-efficient Circular Product-Service Systems (ReCiPSS).435
436
References437
Aguilar-Hernandez, G.A., Sigüenza-Sanchez, C.P., Donati, F., Rodrigues, J.F.D., Tukker, A.,438
2018. Assessing circularity interventions: a review of EEIOA-based studies. Economic439
Structures. 7: 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-018-0113-3.440
Annarelli, A., Battistella, C., Nonino, F., 2016. Product service system: a conceptual441
framework from a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 139, 1011–1032.442
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.061.443
Antikainen, M., & Valkokari, K., 2016. A Framework for Sustainable Circular Business444
Model Innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review. 6:7, 5-12.445
https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1000.446
Asif, F., Lieder, M., & Rashid, A., 2016. Multi-method simulation based tool to evaluate447
economic and environmental performance of circular product systems. Journal of448
Cleaner Production. 139, 1261-1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.122.449
Bocken N., Ingemarsdotter E., Gonzalez D., 2019. Designing Sustainable Business Models:450
Exploring IoT-Enabled Strategies to Drive Sustainable Consumption, in: Aagaard A.451
(Eds.), Sustainable Business Models. Palgrave Studies in Sustainable Business in452
Association with Future Earth., Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp. 61-88.453
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93275-0_3.454
Bocken, N.M.P., Boons, F., Baldassarre, B., 2019. Sustainable business model455
experimentation by understanding ecologies of business models. Journal of Cleaner456
Production. 208, 1498-1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.159.457
Bocken, N.M.P., De Pauw, I., Bakker, C., Van der Grinten, B., 2016. Product design and458
business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production459
Engineering. 33:5, 308-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124.460
Bocken, N.M.P., Rana, P., Short, S.W., 2015. Value mapping for sustainable business461
thinking. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering. 32:1, 67–81.462
https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2014.1000399.463
Bocken, N.M.P., Schuit, C.S.C., Kraaijenhagen, C., 2018. Experimenting with a circular464
business model: lessons from eight cases. Environmental Innovation and Societal465
Transitions. 28, 79-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.02.001.466
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2013. A value mapping tool for sustainable467
business modelling. Corporate Governance. 13:5, 482-497.468
https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2013-0078.469
Bressanelli, G., Adrodegari, F., Perona, M., Saccani, N., 2018. Exploring how usage-focused470
business models enable circular economy through digital technologies. Sustainability.471
10:3, 639-660. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030639.472
Bressanelli, G., Perona, M., Saccani, N., 2017. Reshaping the washing machine industry473
through circular economy and product-service system business models. Procedia CIRP.474
64, 43-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.065.475
Camacho-Otero, J., Boks, C., Pettersen, I., 2018. Consumption in the circular economy: a476
literature review. Sustainability. 10:8, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082758.477
Chamberlin, L., Boks, C., 2018. Marketing approaches for a circular economy: using design478
frameworks to interpret online communications. Sustainability. 10:6, 2070.479
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062070.480
Cong, L., Zhao, F., Sutherland, J. W., 2017. Value recovery from end-of-use products481
facilitated by automated dismantling planning. Clean Technologies and Environmental482
Policy. 19:7, 1867-1882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1370-9.483
Correia, E., Carvalho, H., Azevedo, S.G., Govindan, K., 2017. Maturity models in supply484
chain sustainability: a systematic literature review. Sustainability. 9:1, 64.485
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010064.486
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., 2009. Producing a systematic review, in: Buchanan, D.A., Bryman,487
A. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. Sage, London, pp.488
671–689.489
Diaz Lopez, F.J., Bastein, T., Tukker, A., 2019. Business model innovation for resource-490
efficiency, circularity and cleaner production: what 143 cases tell us change. Ecological491
Economics. 155, 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.009.492
Franciosi, Ch., Lambiase, A, Miranda, S. (2017). Sustainable maintenance: a periodic493
preventive maintenance model with sustainable spare parts management. IFAC494
PapersOnLine. 50:1, 13692-13697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.2536.495
Frishammar, J., Parida, V., 2018, Circular Business Model Transformation: A Roadmap for496
Incumbent Firms. California Management Review, Volume: 61 issue: 2, page(s): 5-29.497
https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618811926498
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The circular economy–a499
new sustainability paradigm?. Journal of Cleaner Production. 143, 757-768.500
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.501
Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., Evans, S., 2018. Sustainable business model innovation: a502
review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 198, 401-416.503
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.240.504
Granholm, G., Grösser, S.N., 2017. The Use-it-Wisely (UIW) Approach, in: Grösser S.,505
Reyes-Lecuona A., Granholm G. (eds) Dynamics of Long-Life Assets. Springer, Cham,506
pp 21-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45438-2_3.507
Haines-Gadd, M., Chapman, J., Lloyd, P., Mason, J., Aliakseyeu, D., 2018. Emotional508
Durability Design Nine—A Tool for Product Longevity. Sustainability. 10:6, 1948.509
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061948.510
Janssen, K. L., Stel, F.G., 2017. Orchestrating partnerships in a circular economy –a working511
method for SMEs. Proceeding of the XXVIII ISPIM Innovation Conference512
“Composing the Innovation Symphony”, Austria, Vienna, 18-21 June, 2017.513
Kalverkamp, M., Pehlken, A., Wuest, T., 2017. Cascade Use and the Management of Product514
Lifecycles. Sustainability. 9:9, 1520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091540.515
Kjaer, L.L., Pigosso, D.C., McAloone, T.C., Birkved, M., 2018. Guidelines for evaluating the516
environmental performance of product/service-systems through life cycle517
assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production. 190, 666-678.518
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.108.519
Lahti, T., Wincent, J., Parida, V., 2018. A definition and theoretical review of the circular520
economy, value creation, and sustainable business models: where are we now and where521
should research move in the future?. Sustainability. 10:8, 2799.522
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082799.523
Leising, E., Quist, J., Bocken, N., 2018. Circular Economy in the building sector: three cases524
and a collaboration tool. Journal of Cleaner Production. 176, 976–989.525
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.010.526
Lewandowski, M., 2016. Designing the business models for circular economy—towards the527
conceptual framework. Sustainability. 8:1, 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010043.528
Lieder, M., Asif, F. M., Rashid, A., Mihelič, A., Kotnik, S., 2018. A conjoint analysis of529
circular economy value propositions for consumers: Using “washing machines in530
Stockholm” as a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production. 172, 264-273.531
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.147.532
Lieder, M., Asif, F.M., Rashid, A., 2017. Towards circular economy implementation: an533
agent-based simulation approach for business model changes. Autonomous Agents and534
Multi-Agent Systems. 31:6, 1377-1402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-017-9365-9.535
Lieder, M., Rashid, A., 2016. Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive536
review in context of manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 115, 36-51.537
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042.538
Linder, M., Williander, M., 2017. Circular business model innovation: inherent uncertainties.539
Business Strategy and the Environment. 26:2, 182–196.540
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1906.541
Manninen, K., Koskela, S., Antikainen, R., Bocken, N., Dahlbo, H., Aminoff, A., 2018. Do542
circular economy business models capture intended environmental value543
propositions?. Journal of Cleaner Production. 171, 413-422.544
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.003.545
Mendoza, J. M. F., Sharmina, M., Gallego-Schmid, A., Heyes, G., Azapagic, A., 2017.546
Integrating backcasting and eco-design for the circular economy: The BECE547
framework. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 21:3, 526-544.548
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12590.549
Mentink, B., 2014. Circular business model innovation: a process framework and a tool for550
business model innovation in a circular economy. Master Thesis. Delft University of551
Technology and Leiden University.552
https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3Ac2554c91-8aaf-4fdd-91b7-553
4ca08e8ea621.554
Mestre, A., Cooper, T., 2017. Circular product design. A multiple loops life cycle design555
approach for the circular economy. The Design Journal. 20:1, 1620-1635.556
https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352686.557
Muranko, Z., Andrews, D., Newton, E. J., Chaer, I., Proudman, P., 2018. The Pro-Circular558
Change Model (P-CCM): Proposing a framework facilitating behavioural change559
towards a Circular Economy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 135, 132–140.560
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.12.017.561
Nußholz, J.L.K., 2017. Circular business models: defining a concept and framing an emerging562
research field. Sustainability. 9:10, 1810. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101810.563
Okoli, C., 2015. A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review.564
Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 37:43, 879-910.565
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1954824.566
Pajula, T., Behm, K., Vatanen, S., Saarivuori, E., 2017. Managing the life cycle to reduce567
environmental impacts, in: Grösser S., Reyes-Lecuona A., Granholm G. (eds) Dynamics568
of Long-Life Assets. Springer, Cham, pp 93-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-569
45438-2_3.570
Parida, V., Burström, T., Visnjic, I., Wincent, J., 2019. Orchestrating industrial ecosystem in571
circular economy: A two-stage transformation model for large manufacturing572
companies. Journal of Business Research. 101, 715-725.573
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.006.574
Parida, V., Wincent, J., 2019. Why and how to com pete through sustainability: a review and575
outline of trends influencing firm and network-level transformation. International576
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 15:1, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-577
019-00558-9.578
Petticrew, M., Roberts, H., 2006. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide.579
Oxford: Blackwell 2006. 352 pp. ISBN 1 4051 2110 6. £29.99. Counselling and580
Psychotherapy Research. 6:4, 304-305. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733140600986250.581
Pialot, O., Millet, D., Bisiaux, J., 2017. “Upgradable PSS”: Clarifying a new concept of582
sustainable consumption/production based on upgradablility. Journal of Cleaner583
Production. 141, 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.161.584
Pieroni, M., McAloone, T., Pigosso, D., 2019. Business model innovation for circular585
economy and sustainability: a review of approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production.586
215, 198-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.036.587
Pieroni, M., Pigosso, D., McAloone, T., 2018. Exploring the synergistic relationships of588
circular business model development and product design, in: Marjanović, D., Štorga,589
M., Škec, S., Bojčetić, N., Pavković, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th590
International Design Conference. Design, Scotland, pp. 347-358.591
https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0202.592
Ritika, J., 2017. The Value Circle: Assessing Value Creation in Circular Business Models.593
Master thesis. Lund University. http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8923323.594
Sinclair, M., Sheldrick, L., Moreno, M., Dewberry, E., 2018. Consumer Intervention595
Mapping—A Tool for Designing Future Product Strategies within Circular Product596
Service Systems. Sustainability. 10:6, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062088.597
Singh, J., Cooper, T., Cole, C., Gnanapragasam, A., Shapley, M., 2019. Evaluating598
approaches to resource management in consume rproduct sectors - an overview of599
global practices. Journal of Cleaner Production. 224, 218-237.600
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.203.601
van Loon, P., Delagarde, C., Van Wassenhove, L. N., 2018. The role of second-hand markets602
in circular busi ness: a simple model for leasing versus selling consumer products.603
International Journal of Production Research. 56:1-2, 960-973.604
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1398429.605
Verstrepen, S., Cruijssen, F., De Brito, M.P., Dullaert, W., 2007. An exploratory analysis of606
reverse logistics in flanders. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research.607
7:4, 301-316. https://doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2007.7.4.3401.608
Virtanen, M., Manskinen, K., Eerola, S., 2017. Circular material library. An innovative tool to609
design circular economy. The Design Journal. 20:1, 1611-1619.610
https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352685.611
Wastling, T., Charnley, F., Moreno, M., 2018. Design for circular behaviour: Considering612
users in a circular economy. Sustainability. 10:6, 1-21.613
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061743.614
615
Table captions616
Table 1. Review of CE categorized.617
Table 2. Result of search queries in databases.618
Table 3. Results of systematic literature review.619
620
Table 1.621
Review of CE categorized.622
CE Categorized Frameworks, tools, models and methods for decision-making
Resource scarcity Approach for multi-scale integrated analysis of societal metabolism
Multi objective pinch analysis eco-industrial park assessment
Promotion of a generic CE concept
Environmental
impact
Sustainable supply chain networks as a suitable means of designing closed-loop production
systems
The model that allows for the analysis of the flow of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
(WEEE) through the reverse chain from the point of collection through to final disposal
Economic
benefits
Combination of substance flow analysis approach with resource productivity indicator
The theoretical framework of corporate sustainability development (CSD) drivers
Stocks and flows model for the dynamic assessment of material demands resulting from
infrastructure transitions
Indicator for “reuse potential” to help both material and waste managers sort out decisions about
the technical feasibility of reusing discards
Unified CE index System under the condition and trend of green supply chain management
Physical input and monetary output model for industrial symbiosis evaluation
Hybrid material and energy flow analysis approach at the company level
Extended economy-wide material flow analysis model
Extended lifecycle assessment (LCA) tool for resource efficiency and more specifically waste
management at the end of life products
A discontinuous three-stage model of industrial symbiosis drawing on biological, ecological,
organizational and systems theory
CE indicator system
Exploration of methodological issues encountered in the application of LCA to various research
questions arising from industrial symbiosis
Model for CE evaluation
Implementation framework for CE
Three-level education framework to meet the theoretical and technological needs of CE
implementation
A new approach called Ecological Sanitation
The intersection
of the three
perspectives
A methodological framework to measure target and planned resource-conserving and
environmental-friendly development
Analysis of emerging integration of business value and environmental returns in the context of
China's CE
Approach to prevent waste and other global impacts based on pre-cycling, CE policy and recycling
insurance
623
Tabel 2 Result of search queries in databases.624
Database Search strings Interpretation
Web of Science (TS = ("business model" AND "circular economy" AND ("tool*" OR
"method*" OR "approach" OR "strateg*" OR "model*" OR "framework"
OR "scheme" OR "roadmap" OR "pattern*" OR “mechanism” OR
“practice*”) AND ("trans*" OR “innov*” OR “chang*” OR “shift” OR
“adapt*”)) AND LANGUAGE: (English)
DOCUMENT TYPES: (Article OR Book OR Book Chapter OR
Proceedings Paper)
LANGUAGE: English
Indexes=SSCI, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-SSH, ESCI
The documents were
checked for the presence
of keywords in the search
string in Topics
(encompassing titles,
keywords and abstracts)
(“TS=” operator).
This query generated 87
hits.
Scopus TITLE-ABS-KEY ("business model" AND "circular economy" AND
("tool*" OR "method*" OR "approach" OR "strateg*" OR "model*"
OR "framework" OR "scheme" OR "roadmap" OR ”pattern*”) AND
("trans*" OR “innov*” OR “chang*” OR “shift” OR “adapt*”)
DOCUMENT TYPES: (Article OR Book OR Book OR Book Chapter
OR Conference Paper OR Review OR Article in Press)
LANGUAGE: English
The query had identical
structure/function as
above.
This query generated 196
hits.
Proquest ft("business model" AND "circular economy" AND ("tool*" OR
"method*" OR "approach" OR "strateg*" OR "model*" OR
"framework" OR "scheme" OR "roadmap" OR ”pattern*” OR
“mechanism” OR “practice*”) AND ("trans*" OR “innov*” OR
“chang*” OR “shift” OR “adapt*”))
DOCUMENT TYPES: Scholarly journals OR Conference
Papers&Proceedings
LANGUAGE: English
250
Result From 87 document found in Web of Science and 196 documents found in Scopus 70 pieces are the
same. Proquest detected 64 new documents. This means that 269 documents in total from both
databases entered the first screening.
“trans*” aims to search for both transition and transformation processes towards circular business
models;
“innov*” aims to search for the innovative (…) or innovation in the endeavour of companies to cope
with the CE challenges;
“chang*” aims to search for changing and/or changes in and “adapt*” for adaptation of parts or of a
whole current business model; the same logic is also with the “shift” search keyword.
625
Table 3 Results of systematic literature review.626
627
Topic, (Authors, Year of Publication) ReSOLVE
framework
Specific
strategies
Extended
boundaries
Last approach Type of
work
Maturity of
tool
Value proposition (VP)
“Checklist” (and a design tool) of the main factors influencing the perception and
acceptance of circular solutions, (Camacho-Otero et al., 2018)
S, O, V Sl BF, O, N CF TTL 2-3
Emotional Durability Design Nine, (Haines-Gadd et al., 2018) S, O, L Sl, (C), (N) BF, O, N, eS, S CF, CM, P, PM, VT, (Gm) TT(R) 4
Conjoint analysis (general statistical method), (Lieder et al., 2018) O (Sl) BF, O, N. S MM TTR 4-5
framework “design for circular behavior”, (Wastling et al., 2017) R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N BF, O, N, eS, S CF, CM, P, PM, VT TT(R) 2-3
Customer/stakeholder segment (C/SS)
“Checklist” of the main factors influencing the perception and acceptance of circular
solutions, (Camacho-Otero et al., 2018)
S, O, V Sl BF, O, N CF TTL 2-3
Emotional Durability Design Nine, (Haines-Gadd et al., 2018) S, O, L Sl, (C), (N) BF, O, N, eS, S CF, CM, P, PM, VT, (G) TT(R) 4
Customer/stakeholder relationship (C/SR)
“Checklist” of the main factors influencing the perception and acceptance of circular
solutions, (Camacho-Otero et al., 2018)
S, O, V Sl BF, O, N CF TTL 2-3
Emotional Durability Design Nine, (Haines-Gadd et al., 2018) S, O, L Sl, (C), (N) BF, O, N, eS, S CF, CM, P, PM, VT, (G) TT(R) 4
The Pro-Circular Change Model (P-CCM), (Muranko et al., 2018) (R), (S), (O), L Sl, C, N BF, O, N, S CF, VT T 1
Consumer Intervention Mapping (CIM) Tool, (Sinclair et al., 2018) (R), S, O, L, V, E Sl, C BF, O, N CF, CM, VT TTL 2
Key resources (KR)
ICT infrastructure for PSS, (Asif et al., 2018) S, O, L, V Sl, C BF, O, N CM, P, T 2-3
Conceptual framework for mapping functionalities of digital technologies to enable
CE transition, (Bressanelli et al., 2018)
R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N BF, O, N, eS,
(S)
CF TT(R) 1-2**
Circular Material Library, (Virtanen et al., 2017) S, O, L, V Sl BF, O, N, eS, S CM, P T 2-3
Key processes (KP)
Predictive maintenance model, (Franciosi et al., 2017) S, O, (L), V, (E) Sl, C, (N) BF, O, N, eS, S CM, MM TTR 3-4
“Checklist” for key processes (strategies) enabling closing and slowing the loops,
(Mestre and Cooper, 2017)
R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, (N) BF, O, N, eS, S CF, P, VT TT(R) 1-2
“Typology of upgrades” and “checklist of practices” for the upgradable PSS, (Pialot
et al., 2017)
S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N BF, O, N, (eS) CF, P, PM TTR 2-3
Cost structure and negative impacts (CS+ NI)
Environmentally extended input–output analysis (EEIOA) for circularity
interventions, (Aguilar-Hernandéz et al., 2018)
R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, (N) BF, O, N, eS, S PM, MM TT(R) 4
Multi-method simulation technique for the economic and environmental performance
of the circular product system, (Asif et al., 2016)
S, O, L, (V) (E) Sl, C, (N) BF, O, N, (eS) CF, CM, P, PM, SS, MM T 4
Guidelines for life cycle assessment of product service systems, (Kjaer et al., 2018) R, S, O, L, V E Sl, C, N eS CF TTL 3-4
Analytical calculation-based tool for assessment of the two BM ways of value
capture, (Van Loon et al., 2017)
S, O Sl BF, O, N CM, MM TTL 3-4
Framework for evaluating the environmental value propositions of CE business
models, (Manninen et al., 2018)
R, S, O, L, V E Sl, C, N eS CF TTR 3
List of several methods and tools for measurement of the impacts on the
environment, (Pajula et al., 2017)
R, S, O, L, V E Sl, C, N BF, O, N, eS, S CF, CM, PM T 3
Whole circular business model (WM)
Framework for sustainable circular business model innovation, (Antikainen and
Valkokari, 2016)
R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N O, N, eS, S CF, VT TTR 1-2
Circular business experiment cycle, (Bocken et al., 2018) R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N O, N, eS, S CF, P, VT TT(R) 2-3
The ecology of business models experimentation map, (Bocken et al., 2019a) R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N BF, O, N, eS, S CF, P, PM, VT TTR 3-4
A framework to support PSS design to encourage sustainable behaviour using IoT
strategies, (Bocken et al., 2019b)
(R), (S), O, L, V,
(E)
Sl, C, N BF, O, N, eS CF, VT TT(L) 2-3
A roadmap for circular business model Transformation, (Frishamar and Parida, 2019) R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N O, N, eS, S CF, P, PM (TTR)* 2-3
The use-it-wisely (UIW) approach, (Granholm and Grösser, 2017) R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N N, eS CF, P, PM TTR 3
Tool for orchestrating value networks, (Janssen and Stel, 2017) R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N BF, O, N, eS, S CF, (P) T(L) (R)? 1***
Cascade use methodology, (Kalverkamp et al., 2017) R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N BF, O, N, eS, S CM, (P) T(L) (R)? 1***
Collaboration tool for CE, (Leising et al., 2018) R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N BF, O, N, eS, S CF, P, PM TTR 2-3
Agent-based modelling approach, (Lieder and Rashid, 2017) S, O, V - BF, O, N SS, MM TTL 3
BECE framework, (Mendoza et al., 2017) R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N BF, O, N, eS, S CF, CM, P, PM, VT TTL -(R) 4
Business cycle canvas, (Mentink, 2014) R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N BF, O, N, eS, S CF, P, PM, G, (Gm), VT TTL -(R) 2-3
Circular business model mapping tool, (Nußholz, 2018) R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N BF, O, N, eS, S CF, P, PM TTR 2-3
Process model of ecosystem transformation toward a circular economy paradigm,
(Parida et al., 2019)
R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N BF, O, N, eS, S CF, P, PM TTR 3-4
Evaluation tool “Value-Circle”, (Ritika, 2017) R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, N BF, O, N, eS, S CF, CM, P, PM, VT TTR 3-4
Retention streams, benefits, positive impacts
Environmentally extended input-output analysis (EEIOA) for circularity
interventions, (Aguilar-Hernandéz et al., 2018)
R, S, O, L, V, E Sl, C, (N) BF, O, N, eS, S PM, MM TT(R) 4
Two-stage dismantling planning method for value recovery, (Cong et al., 2017) S, O, L, E Sl, C, N BF, O, N, eS, S CM, SS, MM T, TTL 3
*created on the empirical research; **potential; ***some potential628
Declaration of interests
☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:
*conflict of Interest Statement