How can open innovation contribute to circular economy adoption? Insights from a literature review

Jesus, Gessica Mina Kim; Jugend, Daniel

doi:10.1108/ejim-01-2021-0022

Cited by 56 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Conveners strive for balancing of collaboration and competition to address interconnected, systemic issues. Their approaches root in novel forms of collaboration and value co‐creation that deviate from traditional “siloed” cost–benefit analyses (Table 3; Brown et al., 2021; Henry et al., 2021; Jesus & Jugend, 2023). Circular, reciprocal value propositions that are mutually determined by relevant system actors could help to establish a fair value share between disconnected or competing parties (Aminoff et al., 2017; Dagnino, 2007; Ritala & Tidström, 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bottom‐up dynamics in circular innovation systems: The perspective of circular start‐ups

Henry,

Kirchherr,

Raven

et al. 2024

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of circular economy (CE) is proposed to lead humanity toward a sustainable future. Public authorities increasingly build on CE narratives. The progress of private sector actors is key to enable more circular resource flows. Still, the world falls far short from becoming circular and large‐scale implementation of CE in actual problem–solution spaces is scarce. This study sheds light into the external strategies of circular start‐ups (CSUs) in building an adequate socio‐institutional embedding for circular business models (CBMs) and puts the findings in the context of CE and sustainability transformations research. CSUs are a distinct group of CE‐oriented actors that build and implement CBMs wholistically and from scratch. Thereby, they can directly and indirectly contribute to the creation of circular innovation systems. This study defines the common CE mission of CSUs, sets it in context of respective socio‐political CE missions, and scrutinizes the roles that CSUs adopt to drive systemic CE implementation. We observe that CSUs’ strategic interventions go further than only novelty creation. This article proposes and elaborates on four roles that CSUs adopt: conveners, reinforcers, pioneers, and champions. The roles differ according to the CSU business models, stakeholders, the institutional elements that are addressed, as well as the directionalities that CSUs set. The findings are discussed considering the governance, policies, and strategic management of various directionalities in which CE innovation develops. It sheds light on inadequacies and limitations for bottom‐up CE innovation in existing norms and cognition, policy, and network governance.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bottom‐up dynamics in circular innovation systems: The perspective of circular start‐ups

Henry,

Kirchherr,

Raven

et al. 2024

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As other studies have suggested (Davies and Hodge, 2007;Lehrer and Sneegas, 2018;Leonhardt et al, 2022), the application of Q methodology to identify the points of view of participants may be a key to predicting behavior towards the innovation and sustainability challenges in the agri-food chains. The above perspectives can be encapsulated within the framework of the CE, which manages to combine features of sustainability and innovation (Jesus and Jugend, 2023).…”

Section: Q Methodology: Background and Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Circular economy in aquaculture: the perspectives of aspiring future operators

Masi,

La Sala,

Coluccia

et al. 2023

BFJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study investigates the views of Italian aquaculture production science students, in their role of future operators, on the application of circular economy strategies.Design/methodology/approachA key step in the development of professional knowledge is to solicit the opinions of the future operators in the aquaculture sector. The authors used the Q methodology to assess the perceptions of the students on four different knowledge dimensions of the CE: operations, culture and organization, products and services, and ecosystem.FindingsFour discourses emerge from the results, representing the respondents' views on the CE. The first discourse considers CE as business strategy applicable to products and services, the second a corporate mission and the fourth an operational efficiency strategy. Finally, the third discourse views CE as a multidimensional concept.Research limitations/implicationsThis study contributes to the scientific and institutional debate on how to accelerate the aquaculture's circular transition. First and foremost, it offers insights to guide policy makers in the development of appropriate knowledge and information systems. Second, it offers the opportunity to improve training programmes to enable current students to be prepared for the future challenges.Originality/valueThe results reflect a different perceived knowledge of CE among future operators, whose opinions are little explored in the literature.

show abstract

“…We performed a literature review in order to accomplish this research aim. Review papers are important, as they synthesize the current knowledge on a subject and provide avenues for future studies [38]. There are different ways to conduct a literature review; the one provided in this paper can be understood as a framework-based review [39,40].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable Development as Freedom: Trends and Opportunities for the Circular Economy in the Human Development Literature

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper identifies, through a literature review, how 53 circular economy (CE) practices are related to the capability approach (CA) proposed by Sen. The main goal was to identify how a virtuous cycle between CE and CA can be developed. Five instrumental freedoms (IF) were analysed: economic facilities, social opportunities, protective security, political freedoms, and transparency guarantees. These relationships were analysed in three flows: CE practices positively impacting IF, CE practices negatively impacting IF, and the feedback influence of IF on CE practices. The results show that 32 of the 53 practices previously mentioned have not yet been studied from the CA context, which indicates that there are several research opportunities. From the practices considered, 72 articles were analysed in the final sample. The results suggest that several CE practices are aligned with the CA, considering that all five IF were identified as positive outcomes of CE practices. However, in some contexts, certain practices can have negative outcomes, which indicates that CE, at least in some cases, may not be considered as sustainable, as it decreases IF and, therefore, the social aspect of sustainability. The results also highlight that there is a feedback from IF to CE, in such a way that investing in the expansion of IF can facilitate the development of CE practices. Therefore, this study concludes that CE is indeed a way to fully operationalize sustainable development.

show abstract

How can open innovation contribute to circular economy adoption? Insights from a literature review

Cited by 56 publications

References 88 publications

Bottom‐up dynamics in circular innovation systems: The perspective of circular start‐ups

Bottom‐up dynamics in circular innovation systems: The perspective of circular start‐ups

Circular economy in aquaculture: the perspectives of aspiring future operators

Sustainable Development as Freedom: Trends and Opportunities for the Circular Economy in the Human Development Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About