ArticlePDF Available

Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions

December 2017
Resources Conservation and Recycling 127(3):221-232

DOI:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005

License
CC BY 4.0

Authors:

Julian Kirchherr

Utrecht University

M.P. Hekkert

Utrecht University

The circular economy concept has gained momentum both among scholars and practitioners. However, critics claim that it means many different things to different people. This paper provides further evidence for these critics. The aim of this paper is to create transparency regarding the current understandings of the circular economy concept. For this purpose, we have gathered 114 circular economy definitions which were coded on 17 dimensions. Our findings indicate that the circular economy is most frequently depicted as a combination of reduce, reuse and recycle activities, whereas it is oftentimes not highlighted that CE necessitates a systemic shift. We further find that the definitions show few explicit linkages of the circular economy concept to sustainable development. The main aim of the circular economy is considered to be economic prosperity, followed by environmental quality; its impact on social equity and future generations is barely mentioned. Furthermore, neither business models nor consumers are frequently outlined as enablers of the circular economy. We critically discuss the various circular economy conceptualizations throughout this paper. Overall, we hope to contribute via this study towards the coherence of the circular economy concept; we presume that significantly varying circular economy definitions may eventually result in the collapse of the concept.

The 9R Framework. Source: Adapted from Potting et al. (2017, p.5)

…

Previous reviews of the circular economy (CE) concept.

…

Development of Circular Economy Definitions over Time.

…

Definitions coded on the 4R framework. Note: Reco = Recover; Recy = Recycle; Reu = Reuse; Red = Reduce; 4R = Reduce, reuse, recycle, recover.

…

Coding Results on Core Principles.

…

Figures - uploaded by Julian Kirchherr

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Julian Kirchherr

Content may be subject to copyright.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Review

Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 deﬁnitions

Julian Kirchherr

⁎

, Denise Reike, Marko Hekkert

Innovation Studies Group, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

ARTICLE INFO

Keywords:

Circular economy

4R framework

Sustainable development

Deﬁnitions

Content analysis

ABSTRACT

The circular economy concept has gained momentum both among scholars and practitioners. However, critics

claim that it means many diﬀerent things to diﬀerent people. This paper provides further evidence for these

critics. The aim of this paper is to create transparency regarding the current understandings of the circular

economy concept. For this purpose, we have gathered 114 circular economy deﬁnitions which were coded on 17

dimensions. Our ﬁndings indicate that the circular economy is most frequently depicted as a combination of

reduce, reuse and recycle activities, whereas it is oftentimes not highlighted that CE necessitates a systemic shift.

We further ﬁnd that the deﬁnitions show few explicit linkages of the circular economy concept to sustainable

development. The main aim of the circular economy is considered to be economic prosperity, followed by

environmental quality; its impact on social equity and future generations is barely mentioned. Furthermore,

neither business models nor consumers are frequently outlined as enablers of the circular economy. We critically

discuss the various circular economy conceptualizations throughout this paper. Overall, we hope to contribute

via this study towards the coherence of the circular economy concept; we presume that signiﬁcantly varying

circular economy deﬁnitions may eventually result in the collapse of the concept.

1. Introduction

The circular economy (CE) concept is trending both among scholars

and practitioners. This is indicated by the rapid growth of peer-re-

viewed articles on CE: More than 100 articles were published on the

topic in 2016, compared to only about 30 articles in 2014 (Geissdoerfer

et al., 2017). On the other hand, many consultancy reports have been

published on the topic recently (with consultancies attempting to signal

expertise on trending topics to clients via such reports (Kipping and

Clark, 2012)). For instance, the major consulting ﬁrms Accenture, De-

loitte, EY and McKinsey & Company all have published on CE in the past

two years (Gartner, 2016; Hannon et al., 2016; Lacy et al., 2015; Hestin

et al., 2016; EY, 2015).

The CE concept is of great interest to both scholars and practitioners

because it is viewed as an operationalization for businesses to imple-

ment the much-discussed concept of sustainable development

(Ghisellini et al., 2016;Murray et al., 2017). The latter concept has

been called too vague to be implementable and has thus started to lose

momentum (van den Brande et al., 2011;Peltonen 2017, p.2 ﬀ.) with

Naudé (2011, p.352) even calling it a “theoretical dream [rather than]

implementable reality”and Engelman (2013, p.3) writing that “we live

today in an age of ‘sustainababble’, a cacophonous profusion of uses of

the world ‘sustainable [development]’to mean anything from en-

vironmentally better to cool”. Notable concepts also supposed to

operationalize sustainable development for businesses are the green

economy and green growth concepts (UNEP, 2011; OECD, 2016),

whereas the CE concept is argued to be the one with most traction these

days (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2014; EY, 2015).

A concept with so much traction is usually employed by various

stakeholders. These can blur the concept since they frequently operate

in signiﬁcantly diﬀerent worlds of thought (Gladek, 2017; de Vries and

Petersen, 2009). Blurriness has been raised as a criticism against con-

cepts such as the green economy one (Loiseau et al., 2016) and it has

also been raised against CE in various CE review articles we identiﬁed

(Ghisellini et al., 2016; Lieder and Rashid 2016; Blomsma and Brennan,

2017; Sauvé et al., 2016; Murray et al., 2017; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017;

Lewandowski, 2016; further details in Table 1) and beyond. For in-

stance, Lieder and Rashid (2016, p.37) point out that “there are various

possibilities for deﬁning [CE]”, while Yuan et al. (2008, p.5) write that

“there is no commonly accepted deﬁnition of [CE]”. However, not a

single study until now, as far as we are aware, has comprehensively and

systematically investigated CE deﬁnitions.

Yet it is both of academic and practical relevance to comprehen-

sively and systematically investigate CE deﬁnitions which we view as

an operationalization of CE understandings throughout this paper

(further discussed in Section 2). After all, a concept with various un-

derstandings may ultimately collapse or remain in a deadlock due to

permanent conceptual contention (Hirsch and Levin, 1999; Bocken

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005

Received 13 April 2017; Received in revised form 2 September 2017; Accepted 5 September 2017

⁎

Corresponding author at: Innovation Studies Group, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands.

E-mail address: j.kirchherr@uu.nl (J. Kirchherr).

Resources, Conservation & Recycling 127 (2017) 221–232

MARK

et al., 2017; Blomsma and Brennan, 2017). Meanwhile, further theo-

retical development of the concept can help cohere it and thus cir-

cumvent this (Hirsch and Levin, 1999; Blomsma and Brennan, 2017).

This theoretical development requires, as a ﬁrst step, transparency re-

garding current understandings of the concept in the discourse (Hirsch

and Levin, 1999; Blomsma and Brennan, 2017). The aim of this paper is

to provide this transparency. Hence, the research question addressed in

this paper is: What are current understandings of the CE concept among

scholars and practitioners?

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2out-

lines methods adopted (including a description of our coding frame).

Meanwhile, Section 3presents and discusses the results of our analysis

of 114 CE deﬁnitions. Our argument is summarized in Section 4.

2. Methods

There are at least two methods to investigate the understanding of a

concept, as discussed by Dahlsrud (2008, p.2 ﬀ.). First, interviews

asking for the understanding of a concept can be conducted with re-

levant stakeholders, but it has been found that these stakeholders of-

tentimes struggle to provide thoughtful responses ad hoc (Johnston and

Beatson, 2005; O’Dwyer, 2003; Dahlsrud, 2008). Second, written deﬁ-

nitions of a concept can be gathered and then analysed. This method is

believed to provide a more valid view on the current understanding of a

concept in the discourse since written deﬁnition are usually more de-

liberate than ad hoc ones provided in interviews (Carroll, 1999; Moir,

2001; Dahlsrud, 2008). This second method is thus chosen as a base

method for this paper.

Still, we acknowledge that deﬁnitions can be rather narrow oper-

ationalisations of the understanding of a concept –particularly those

published in peer-reviewed journals. Authors face (sometimes severe)

space restrictions in most of these journals and may thus choose to only

present an abridged deﬁnition of a complex concept that focuses solely

on the aspects of the concept investigated in their paper. An example

may be Geng et al. (2013) whose CE deﬁnition presented in Science only

counts 41 words. Science allows a maximum of 4500 words including

references for a research article (Science, 2017). Meanwhile, this

journal, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, allows 7000 words ex-

cluding references (RCR, 2017) with one recent CE deﬁnition presented

in it, Saidani et al. (2017), counting 112 words. We also hypothesize

that authors may ﬁnd some aspects of a concept so self-evident that

they thus do not choose to include these aspects in their deﬁnition even

if no space restrictions are faced. Hence, the understanding of a concept

may be broader than the written deﬁnition presented.

To (at least partially) address this, we considered not only the de-

ﬁnition, but also the neighbouring text (which could also include vi-

sualizations if a comprehensive deﬁnition is absent) and at times the

entire paper for cues regarding the authors’understanding of the CE

concept. A deﬁnition is thus our main, but not our only

operationalization of CE understanding.

Nevertheless, our study may

exaggerate the negligence of certain dimensions in CE understandings,

given that a CE deﬁnition is likely narrower than the CE understanding

of a selected author (at least at times).

The remainder of this section is divided in three sub-sections. First,

we describe how we gathered 114 deﬁnitions on CE. Second, we de-

scribe our coding framework. Third, we outline the procedure based on

the coding framework for coding the various deﬁnitions identiﬁed.

2.1. Sample development

We decided to gather deﬁnitions published in peer-reviewed jour-

nals as well as deﬁnitions from works that are not peer-reviewed (e.g.

policy papers and reports such as Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012),

Schut et al. (2015) and Dupont-Inglis (2015) –all of these items are

called ‘articles’throughout this paper) –since much of the work on CE

(including conceptual work) is driven by non-academic players, as

noted inter alia by Schut et al. (2015).Ghisellini et al. (2016) also

consider works that were not peer-reviewed in their literature review

on CE. Similarly, Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, p.767) explicitly propose in

their conceptual contribution on CE to consider non-peer-reviewed

works for future conceptual discussions relating to it.

Our method to gather deﬁnitions on CE consists of three ap-

proaches. These were designed with the intention to develop a re-

presentative sample of CE deﬁnitions. First, we retrieved deﬁnitions

from the CE literature sample developed by Ghisellini et al. (2016)

which is said to be representative for writings on CE (Ghisellini et al.,

2016). The sample includes 155 articles, but only 74 of these mention

the term ‘circular economy’, and of those 54 deﬁne it, according to our

analysis. Second, we conducted searches in Elsevier's Scopus for the

term ‘circular economy’. We then skimmed the results of these searches

speciﬁcally for conceptual literature assuming this literature would

contain deﬁnitions. We also skimmed the bibliographies of identiﬁed

conceptual articles. Deﬁnitions included based upon this approach were

inter alia deﬁnitions provided in Geissdoerfer et al. (2017),Murray

et al. (2017),Zhu et al. (2010a, 2010b) and deﬁnitions outlined by the

Circular Academy (2017). Thirdly, we also included all deﬁnitions

outlined in a recent special issue on the circular economy in the Journal

of Industrial Ecology (Bocken et al., 2017) as well as additional recent

literature, e. g. Skene (2017), as suggested by one reviewer of this

paper. We note regarding this overall approach that no distinct search

was undertaken for deﬁnitions for works that are not peer-reviewed.

Rather, the ﬁrst approach (with the Ghisellini et al. (2016) sample in-

cluding works that are not peer-reviewed, as outlined earlier) as well as

the second approach (with bibliographies gathered via it frequently

including practitioner writings) ensured the inclusion of deﬁnitions that

are not peer-reviewed in our sample. Overall, we collected 114 CE

deﬁnitions via the described approaches.

This sample size was deemed suﬃcient upon comparing it to the

sample sizes of papers that have adopted similar methods. For instance,

Dacin et al. (2010) analyze 37 deﬁnitions on social entrepreneurship,

Zahra et al. (2009) 20 deﬁnitions on social entrepreneurship and en-

trepreneurs, while Dahlsrud (2008) considers 37 deﬁnitions on corpo-

rate social responsibility. We note that we do not claim that our col-

lection of deﬁnitions on CE is representative. However, we are

conﬁdent that the set of deﬁnitions is at least fairly representative re-

garding the written deﬁnitions on CE by scholars and practitioners,

given the approach adopted. We thus claim throughout our paper that

our analysis of CE deﬁnitions is based on a comprehensive –our synonym

for fairly representative –set of deﬁnitions. An overview of all 114 de-

ﬁnitions is provided in the supplementary materials.

Table 1

Previous reviews of the circular economy (CE) concept.

# Study Focus

1Ghisellini et al. (2016) Summary of 155 articles on CE

2Lieder and Rashid (2016) Summary of CE literature on the manufacturing

industry

3Blomsma and Brennan

(2017)

Explanation of the emergence of the CE concept

4Sauvé et al. (2016) Comparison of CE concept, environmental

sciences and sustainable development

5Murray et al. (2017) Comparison of CE concept and sustainable

business

6Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) Comparison of CE concept and sustainability

7Lewandowski (2016) Conceptualization of circular business models

We only refer to deﬁnitions (and not the neighbouring text/visualizations, the entire

text) throughout this paper to enhance readability.

J. Kirchherr et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 127 (2017) 221–232

222

2.2. Coding framework

Asystematic assessment of deﬁnitions requires a coding framework

with such a framework showing “how verbal or visual data have been

converted into numeric data for purposes of analysis”(Bourque, 2004).

We developed our coding framework in an iterative process. Initial

coding dimensions were developed deductively, based upon our initial

practical knowledge on the topic (e.g. one of the authors of this paper

worked at a consultancy involved in CE work prior to joining academia)

and a preliminary literature review. Additional coding dimensions were

added inductively throughout the coding process (emergent coding

(Dahlsrud, 2008, p.3 ﬀ.;Haney, 1998)). Our eventual coding dimen-

sions relate to the core principles, aims and enabler of CE. We specify how

we developed these dimensions and what they entail below. We also

summarize in Table 2 which coding dimensions were included in our

coding framework upfront and which were added throughout the

coding process.

Core principles: We distinguish between two types of core principles:

Those relating the R frameworks and the systems perspective. Various R

frameworks have been used in academia as well as by practitioners for

decades (indicating that the allegedly novel idea of CE is grounded in

established thinking (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017, p.611 ﬀ.;)), whereas

a speciﬁc article as a starting point for these frameworks cannot be

traced (Sihvonen and Ritola, 2015; Yan and Wu, 2011). Many authors,

e. g. Zhu et al. (2010a, 2010b) and Reh (2013), view the various R

frameworks as the ‘how-to’of CE and thus a core principle of it. We

initially chose the 3R framework as the most prominent R framework

for our coding (King et al., 2006; Brennan et al., 2015; Ghisellini et al.,

2016); it is also at the core of the 2008 Circular Economy Promotion

Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC, 2008). Yet we eventually

used the 4R framework which is at the core of the European Union (EU)

Waste Framework Directive (European Commission, 2008) introducing

‘Recover’as the fourth R (the various ‘R’are deﬁned in Table 2) since

several deﬁnitions were found to refer to ‘recover’. This nuance could

not have been captured if we had coded on the 3R framework. Scholars

have proposed R frameworks beyond the 4R framework, such as the 6Rs

(Sihvonen and Ritola, 2015) or even 9Rs (van Buren et al., 2016;

Potting et al., 2017) with the latter framework, possibly the most

nuanced one, depicted in Fig. 1. None of these frameworks were chosen

for coding, though, since none of the deﬁnitions referred to them.

All varieties of the R framework share a hierarchy as their main

feature with the ﬁrst R (which would be ‘reduce’in the 4R framework)

viewed to be a priority to the second R and so on (Potting et al., 2017;

Sihvonen and Ritola 2015; van Buren et al., 2016). We included this

waste hierarchy as a coding dimension from the very beginning. This

inclusion ﬁnds particular support in the writings on cradle-to-cradle

(C2C), a concept the CE concept particularly builds on (Linder et al.,

2017). One of the three C2C core principles,

outlined in McDonough

and Braungart (2001) and further elaborated in Braungart and

McDonough (2002),is‘waste equals food’, a key CE idea expressed via

the various Rs, with Braungart & McDonough (2002, p.56) noting re-

garding this principle that “most recycling is actually downcycling; it

reduces the quality of a material over time”. Consequently, the authors

suggest (inter alia) to fundamentally rethink production/distribution

and consumption processes prior to pursuing recycling and thus es-

sentially a waste hierarchy.

Systems perspective: The systems perspective is already mentioned in

Table 2

Coding framework (obtained via the iterative coding process).

Core principles Aims

4R framework [I]: Explicit

reference to the 4R framework/

all 4R dimensions (reduce,

reuse, recycle, recover)?

Reduce [D]: Discussion around refusing,

rethinking, redesigning (including prolonging the

lifespan of products), minimization, reduction,

prevention of resource use and/or preserving of

natural capital?

Sustainable development [D]:

Explicit reference to

sustainability and/or sustainable

development?

Environmental quality [D]: Discussion on how

CE aims to maintain, protect and/or restore the

environment and/or resource eﬃciency/enable

the transition towards a low carbon economy?

Reuse [D]: Discussion around reusing (excluding

waste), closing the loop, cycling, repairing and/or

refurbishing of resources?

Economic prosperity [D]: Discussion on how CE

aims to maintain, protect, transform and/or

strengthen the economy?

Recycle [D]: Discussion around remanufacturing,

recycling, closing the loop, cycling and/or reuse of

waste?

Social equity [D]: Discussion on how CE aims to

protect, transform, strengthen and/or develop the

society, human well-being and/or jobs?

Recover [I]: Discussion around incineration of

materials with energy recovery?

Future generations (time dimension) [D]:

Discussion of future generations and/or the long-

term perspective of CE?

Waste hierarchy [D]: Indication of an order or ranking of the various Rs mentioned, e.g.

via words such as “ﬁrst”,“alternatively”or “least desirable”?

Systems perspective [D]: Explicit

discussion around CE as a

system?

Micro-systems perspective [I]: Discussion around

product level changes, ﬁrms and/or consumers and

their preferences?

Meso-systems perspective [I]: Discussion around

CE at the regional level and/or eco-industrial

parks?

Macro-systems perspective [I]: Discussion

around CE at the global and/or national level and/

or the overall industry structure?

Enabler

Business models [D]: Explicit mentioning of business models (including speciﬁc type of business model such as product-as-a-service)?

Consumers [I]: Explicit mentioning of consumption/consumer perspective/consumers as drivers of CE?

Note: If question posed per coding dimension answered with ‘Yes’, dimension coded as ‘1’, otherwise as ‘0’; example phrases/coding depicted in the supplementary materials; [D]

= deductively; coding dimension was chosen already prior to starting the ﬁrst round of coding, [I] = inductively; coding dimension was added during the coding process.

A critical discussion of the various Rs is provided in Reike et al. (2017).

The C2C rests on three key principles, namely ‘waste equals food’,‘respect diversity’

and ‘use current solar income’. Yet the second and third principle did not emerge as main

coding categories when coding the various deﬁnitions, and are thus not further examined

in-depth in this paper.

Life cycle assessment has emerged as the main tool to judge upon products holistically

from a sustainable development perspective (Toxopeus et al., 2015; Neugebauer et al.,

2015).

J. Kirchherr et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 127 (2017) 221–232

223

early writings on CE, e.g. Davis and Hall (2006) and Zhijun and Nailing

(2007), and can thus also be seen as a core principle of it. Hence, it was

included as an initial coding dimension. Those mentioning it highlight

that CE requires a fundamental shift instead of incremental twisting of

the current system. This coding dimension was reﬁned when it was

found upon the review of the various deﬁnitions that several authors, e.

g. Fang et al. (2007),Sakr et al. (2011), and Jackson et al. (2014), argue

that the transition to CE needs to occur at three levels which can be

interpreted as three levels of the CE system: The macro, the meso and

the micro system. While the macro-systems perspective highlights the

need to adjust industrial composition and structure of the entire

economy, the meso-systems perspective usually focuses on eco-in-

dustrial parks as systems (on these parks: Heeres et al. (2004),Shi et al.

(2010)) and this level is also called the ‘regional level’at times, e. g. by

Li et al. (2010, p.4274) or Geng et al. (2009, p.16). Meanwhile, the

micro-systems perspective usually considers products, individual en-

terprises and what needs to happen to increase their circularity as well

as consumers (Jackson et al., 2014; Sakr et al., 2011).

2.3. Aims

Sustainable development with its sub-dimensions was included as a

coding dimension from the very beginning due to the frequent men-

tioning of this concept and its sub-dimensions as the main aim of CE, e.

g. by Ghisellini et al. (2016), the European Environment Agency (2016)

and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013b). The term ‘sustainable

development’, coined by the 1987 report ‘Our Common Future’by the

World Commission of Environment and Development (WCED)

(Redclift, 1989, p.365 ﬀ.;Palmer, 1992, p.1011 ﬀ.) has already been

presented in section 1 of this paper with CE argued to be an oper-

ationalization of it for businesses. Overall, the term is seen as a guiding

principle for development that encompasses three aims which must be

accomplished simultaneously: Environmental quality, economic pros-

perity and social equity (Taylor, 2016, p.2;Fulton, 2012; Elkington,

1997; WCED, 1987). Economic prosperity is particularly highlighted by

private sector CE stakeholders, according to the experience of one of the

authors of this paper. Meanwhile, the WCED report particularly high-

lights the intergenerational component of these three sustainable de-

velopment aims arguing that they must be met “without compromising

the ability of future generations”(WCED, 1987). Hence, we have in-

cluded a time dimension as a separate coding dimension.

Enabler: We included business models as a coding dimension in our

coding framework from the very beginning. This inclusion is grounded

in writings such as Brennan et al. (2015) who particularly highlight that

the circular economy would require novel business models. Ellen

MacArthur Foundation (2012) has also highlighted the signiﬁcant role

of novel business models as an enabler in the transition towards CE.

This coding dimension was conﬁrmed once it was found in several

deﬁnitions examined, whereas it did not emerge as a core component in

our set of CE deﬁnitions (further discussed in Section 3.4). Furthermore,

we included consumers as a coding dimension upon review of our de-

ﬁnitions since it was featured in some of them as an alleged second

enabler of CE. Like business models, consumers did not emerge as a

core component in the set of deﬁnitions examined, though (further

discussed in Section 3.4).

The ﬁnal coding framework consisting of 17 coding dimensions and

used to code all 114 deﬁnitions is depicted in Table 2 (with further

details provided in the Supplementary materials). We also depicted this

as a verbal one-sentence CE deﬁnition upon a suggestion of a reviewer

of this paper. This compact verbal deﬁnition may be of help to those

reading on CE. However, this deﬁnition may be understood, ﬁrst and

foremost, as the summary of our coding framework instead of a deﬁ-

nitive CE deﬁnition since the CE concept is understood throughout this

paper as a construct that is developed through a multi-stakeholder

discourse (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Dahlsrud, 2008). This under-

standing implies that “there is no single group with the undisputed

authority to deﬁne what [CE] means exactly”(Gladek, 2017) and that

thus our analysis of CE understandings is also (at least partially) sub-

jective; it is an analysis from the viewpoint of our CE understanding,

whereas we attempted to include the main concepts appearing in the

various deﬁnitions in our coding framework. While we would generally

welcome it if readers adopted our outlined deﬁnition and while we

explain particularly in the next section why we view this deﬁnition as

compelling, we also propose additional CE deﬁnitions in section 3.5. of

this paper which we also ﬁnd suitable for further deliberation. Our CE

deﬁnition reads:

“A circular economy describes an economic system that is based on

business models which replace the ‘end-of-life’concept with redu-

cing, alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering materials in

production/distribution and consumption processes, thus operating

at the micro level (products, companies, consumers), meso level

Fig. 1. The 9R Framework.

Source: Adapted from Potting et al. (2017, p.5)

J. Kirchherr et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 127 (2017) 221–232

224

(eco-industrial parks) and macro level (city, region, nation and be-

yond), with the aim to accomplish sustainable development, which

implies creating environmental quality, economic prosperity and

social equity, to the beneﬁt of current and future generations.”

2.4. Coding procedure

We consciously decided in favour of manual coding of deﬁnitions

versus automatic coding via computer software since we feared that

automatic coding would be too mechanical to lead to meaningful re-

sults. A word cloud analysis of the 114 deﬁnitions at question provides

evidence for this. One of the most prominent terms within the word

cloud we generated is the term ‘economic’. This could result in the

reader believing that economic prosperity is a key aim of CE. In con-

trast, the deﬁnition by Stahel (2014) uses the term ‘economic’when

stating that “we deﬁne [CE] as all economic activities to extend the

service-life of goods […]”. Hence, manual coding helped us to avoid

misinterpretation such as between ‘ends’and ‘means’, as in the ex-

ample. All manual coding was undertaken in Excel.

We acknowledge that manual coding raises questions regarding

reliability with diﬀerent coders found to produce conﬂicting coding

results at times (e. g. outlined by Hruschka et al. (2004) and Olswang

et al. (2006)). Every written deﬁnition in our sample was coded by two

coders based upon an initial set of coding rules. Diverging coding re-

sults were reviewed by both coders and coding rules were then recon-

sidered (which could mean that coding rules were amended or added) –

a good practice to enhance reliability in manual coding (e.g. argued by

Neuendorf (2002) and Hruschka et al. (2004)). The coding procedure,

further detailed in the supplementary materials, was identical for de-

ﬁnitions from peer-reviewed works and works that were not peer-re-

viewed with the ﬁnal coding of all 114 deﬁnitions undertaken based

upon the coding framework depicted in Table 2.

We note that ﬁnal inter-coder reliability (Sanders and Cuneo, 2010;

Swert, 2012) was high with overall results not diﬀering more than 4%

between coders, as evidenced in the various ﬁgures and tables in Sec-

tion 3. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that any quantiﬁcation of a

qualitative deﬁnition simpliﬁes and thus distorts it, whereas, on the

other hand, this quantiﬁcation also enables a succinct comparison

across many deﬁnitions. Divergences in coding results are reported

throughout this paper mirroring Kirchherr et al. (2016) in order not to

convey any coding results as deﬁnite.

3. Results & discussion

This section is divided in ﬁve sub-sections. First, a brief overview

regarding the sample of deﬁnitions is provided. Second, results are

presented and discussed on core principles of CE (varieties of the R

framework, systems perspective). Third, results are presented and dis-

cussed on CE’s aims (sustainable development with its various sub-di-

mensions). Forth, results are presented and discussed on CE business

models and consumers as CE enablers. Fifth, the results are summar-

ized.

Results in all remaining sub-sections of this section are reported

from three angles: The angle of the entire sample, the temporal angle

and the peer-reviewed versus practitioner angle. 2012 was chosen as

the main cut-oﬀpoint for temporal analyses since the initial report on

CE by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012) was published in Jan-

uary 2012; this report was called seminal (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017,

p.759 ﬀ.;Lieder and Rashid, 2016) and it was thus assumed that it has

likely impacted the discourse. Results are presented from both from a

peer-reviewed and practitioner angle since “diﬀerent actors in the CE

landscape (e.g., academic, [practitioner] actors) have diﬀerent inter-

pretations of the concept”(Blomsma and Brennan, 2017). All coding

results for the entire sample are described in the text below and coding

results from all three angles are presented in Table 3 and Table 4, but

only those results from the second and third angle that were found to be

most notable are further described in the text for reasons of space.

3.1. Sample overview

We examined 148 articles that mentioned the term ‘circular

economy’. Only 114 (77%) of these also deﬁne the term, although we

Table 4

Coding Results on Aims and Enabler.

Mentioning of (in sample) …(%) Full sample Before 2012 2012 or later Peer-reviewed Practitioner

Aims

Sustainable development (SD) 11 10 12 12 11

All three dimensions of SD 13 10–13 13–14 15 8

Environmental quality 37–38 42 35–36 41–42 28

Economic prosperity 46 52 45 44 53

Social equity 18–20 23–26 16–18 19–22 14–17

Future generations (time dimension) 1 0 1 1 0

Enabler

Business models 11 0 14 9 14

Consumers 19 16 20 18 22

Note: Full sample = All 114 deﬁnitions.

Table 3

Coding Results on Core Principles.

Mentioning of (in sample) …(%) Full sample Before 2012 2012 or later Peer-reviewed Practitioner

Reduce 54–55 71 48–49 59–60 44

Reuse 74–75 71–74 75–76 77–78 67–69

Recycle 79 90–94 73–75 84–85 67–69

Recover 7–810 6–79–10 3

Waste hierarchy 30 48 23 38 11

Systems perspective 42 29 47 44 39

Micro-systems perspective 19 13 22 18 22

Meso-systems perspective 21 13 24 21 22

Macro-systems perspective 24 29 22 24 22

Note: Full sample = All 114 deﬁnitions.

J. Kirchherr et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 127 (2017) 221–232

225

explicitly searched for literature containing deﬁnitions. We ﬁnd this

odd, given that many authors have already noted the conceptual con-

fusion regarding CE, as outlined in section 1 of this paper, which

highlights in our point of view the necessity to provide a deﬁnition

when writing about CE. Given this ﬁnding, we recommend that scholars

working on CE conceptually deliberate on the CE concept through the

explicit adoption of a CE deﬁnition in their published work. We believe

that it would be in the interest of the ﬁeld if the deﬁnition adopted

would correspond with the most frequently CE conceptualizations

employed (outlined in this paper) to enable cumulative knowledge

development on the topic. This does not imply that scholars are urged

to copy-paste frequently employed deﬁnitions; rather, scholars are en-

couraged to critically engage with concepts frequently found in various

CE deﬁnitions.

The sample overall reﬂects that CE is “a young ﬁeld”(Murray et al.,

2017): 83 (73%) of the deﬁnitions are from the past ﬁve years. Mean-

while, 77 (68%) of the deﬁnitions have been published in peer-re-

viewed journals. The most popular journal among these is the Journal of

Industrial Ecology (23 deﬁnitions), driven by the inclusion of a recent

Journal of Industrial Ecology special issue on CE in our sample, as out-

lined in the previous section, followed by the Journal of Cleaner Pro-

duction (17 deﬁnitions). No other journal appears more than three times

as a source of deﬁnitions.

Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, p.759) as well as Schut et al. (2015, p.15)

claim that the most prominent CE deﬁnition has been provided by Ellen

MacArthur Foundation (2012, p.7) which reads:

“[CE] an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by

intention and design. It replaces the ‘end-of-life’concept with re-

storation, shifts towards the use of renewable energy, eliminates the

use of toxic chemicals, which impair reuse, and aims for the elim-

ination of waste through the superior design of materials, products,

systems, and, within this, business models.”

This deﬁnition is indeed the most employed deﬁnition in our set of

deﬁnitions. Yet it is employed –besides by Ellen MacArthur Foundation

(2012) and sometimes in abridged form –only eleven times, namely by

Charonis (2012),Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2014),EUKN (2015),

Schut et al. (2015),Hobson (2016),Cullen (2017) Goldberg (2017),

Moreau et al. (2017),Niero et al. (2017) and Skene (2017). Only three

other deﬁnitions in our sample are used more than once: The

(expanded) deﬁnition by Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013a) (used

three more times), the deﬁnition by Preston (2012) (used one more

time) and Li et al. (2010) (used one more time). Hence, our sample of

114 deﬁnitions features 95 diﬀerent deﬁnitions. We now examine the

degree of conceptual diﬀerence in these deﬁnitions along the coding

dimensions.

3.2. Core principles of the circular economy

We examined the frequency of the four 4R framework components

in the 114 deﬁnitions. Allwood et al. (2011, p.368) state that CE would

be about reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery, but that “in reality

much policy has been oriented towards promoting the third”(echoed

by Ghisellini et al. (2016, p.16 ﬀ.)). This is corroborated by our coding

with recycling found to be the most common component in the deﬁ-

nitions examined (79% of deﬁnitions), followed by reuse (74%–75% of

deﬁnitions) and reduce (54%–55% of deﬁnitions). All 4Rs (except for

‘Reuse’) are found less frequently in CE deﬁnitions from 2012 or later

indicating that the discourse moved away from this framework, pos-

sibly towards a systemic framework (further discussed at the end of this

sub-section). Meanwhile, Gladek (2017) claims that “some consensus is

developing among the diﬀerent players working in the ﬁeld on how to

deﬁne [CE]”.This is not corroborated by our coding, though (Fig. 2).

The 16 diﬀerent possible combinations of the 4Rs are depicted in

Fig. 3. Of these, reduce, reuse, recycle (the 3R framework) is the most

commonly employed in the entire sample (35%–40% of deﬁnitions)

with Jiao and Boons (2014, p.21), for instance, writing CE is “deﬁned as

a holistic concept covering the activities of ‘reduce, reuse, and recycle’

in the process of production, circulation, and consumption”, followed

by reuse and recycle (23% of deﬁnitions). No other combination is

featured in more than 10% of the deﬁnitions. The 4R framework, as the

oﬃcial EU policy framework for CE, is only reﬂected in 3–4% of deﬁ-

nitions. Perhaps most surprisingly, Fig. 3 also showcases that 6–7% of

deﬁnitions outline the how-to of CE as merely recycling –a subversion

of the term since a ﬁrm merely focusing on recycling is not circular in

our point of view. Practitioner deﬁnitions overall are found to feature

reuse and recycle as often as the 3R framework (25% of deﬁnitions). An

explanation is that practitioners have little interest in promoting re-

duction since this may imply curbing consumption and economic

growth if no shift to product-as-a-service as the dominant business

Fig. 2. Development of Circular Economy

Deﬁnitions over Time.

J. Kirchherr et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 127 (2017) 221–232

226

model is undertaken simultaneously (George et al., 2015; Lacy et al.,

2015).

Only 30 percent of deﬁnitions examined were found to contain a

waste hierarchy with Song et al. (2015, p.200) writing, for instance,

that only “if reuse or repairs are not possible, they can be recycled or

recovered from the waste stream”. Waste hierarchies have been fea-

tured less frequently more recently and are barely included in practi-

tioner deﬁnitions (contained in 11% of practitioner deﬁnitions versus

38% of peer-reviewed ones). Explicating waste hierarchies, e. g. the

prioritization of reducing over all other Rs, results in a CE concept that

is less of a feel-good concept everybody naturally agrees with. The CE

concept may thus lose followers in the short-term if these hierarchies

are explicated (Cullen, 2017) and our data indicates that this is a

concern found more among (activist) practitioners than academics.

However, explicating these hierarchies is necessary to provide gui-

dance to those keen to adopt it, as already outlined by Price and Joseph

(2000) and Murray et al. (2017). In addition, ﬁrms may take the path of

least resistance to adopt CE if waste hierarchies are not explicated, e. g.

only improving their recycling and thus only a small part of their op-

eration, without the needed overhaul of the entire supply chain, mode

of operation and the radical change in product materials. Particularly

CE implementation based on deﬁnitions that do not outline ‘Reduce’as

CE’s priority can result in CE subverted to the cause of continuing an

unsustainable business-as-usual model.

The systems perspective as a core principle of CE has been outlined

in the previous section. It can be hypothesized that this perspective may

have replaced the R framework. The systems perspective is explicated

in 42% of deﬁnitions examined with Charonis (2012, p.2) writing that

CE “is understood as a system that is designed to be restorative and

regenerative”. There is a signiﬁcant emphasis on this perspective since

early 2012: 29% of the deﬁnitions featured this perspective prior to

2012, compared to 47% from 2012 onwards, possibly induced by Ellen

MacArthur Foundation (2012) that mentions it. Most deﬁnitions in-

cluding a systems perspective focus on the macro-system. For instance,

Yuan et al. (2008, p.5) write that CE “requires complete reform of the

whole system of human activity”. Yet the meso-systems perspective, e.

g. outlined by Conticelli and Tondelli (2014), that focuses on eco-in-

dustrial parks is even more prominent than the macro-perspective in

deﬁnitions from 2012 or later, indicating that CE is now increasingly

seen as an endeavour that requires eﬀorts particularly at the regional

level. Only few deﬁnitions, e. g. Fang et al. (2007) and Linder et al.

(2017),mention that CE requires fundamental changes simultaneously

at the micro, meso and macro system, an explication we ﬁnd helpful to

underscore the holistic systemic change that CE requires.

3.3. Aims of the circular economy

We have outlined in Section 1 of this paper that CE is frequently

viewed as an operationalization for businesses to implement the much-

debated concept of sustainable development. Yet Geissdoerfer et al.

(2017, p.757) claim that the “relationship between the concepts is not

made explicit in literature”. This is conﬁrmed by our coding with only

12% of our deﬁnitions explicitly including notions of sustainable de-

velopment, as depicted in Table 4.Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, p.765)

furthermore note that authors on CE usually do not take a “holistic

view”on environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity

as the three dimensions of sustainability (WBCSD, 2017; Elkington,

1997). This is also conﬁrmed by our coding with only 13% of deﬁni-

tions referring to all three dimensions, a ﬁnding that is particularly

problematic in our point of view since a CE understanding only en-

tailing one or two of the three dimensions of sustainable development

can result in CE implementation that is not sustainable, e. g. one lacking

social considerations.

Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, p.765),Sauvé et al. (2016, p.54) and

Lieder and Rashid (2016, p.46) state that discussions around CE would

focus mostly on environmental quality with Lieder and Rashid (2016,

p.46) even arguing that “discussions around [CE are] done from [an]

environmental impact perspective leaving economic beneﬁts […]

missing”. Yet these claims are rebutted by our coding. The most pro-

minent aim of CE is economic prosperity (46% of deﬁnitions), followed

by environmental quality (37%–38% of deﬁnitions). Economic pros-

perity is most frequently mentioned by practitioners (53% of deﬁni-

tions) who are oftentimes said to view CE as a pathway to boost growth

(Lacy et al., 2015; Ghisellini et al., 2016).

Several authors such as Sauvé et al. (2016, p.54),Murray et al.

(2017, p.369) and Moreau et al. (2017) claim that the CE concept lar-

gely neglects social equity. This is conﬁrmed by our coding with social

equity only considered in 18%–20% of deﬁnitions. For instance, Geng

Fig. 3. Deﬁnitions coded on the 4R framework.

Note: Reco = Recover; Recy = Recycle;

Reu = Reuse; Red = Reduce; 4R = Reduce, reuse,

recycle, recover.

J. Kirchherr et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 127 (2017) 221–232

227

et al. (2009, p.16) write that CE would aim to “bring great […] social

beneﬁts”. Scholars researching the sharing economy, a neighbouring

ﬁeld to CE (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017), have begun a fruitful conversa-

tion regarding its social equity impacts with several scholars, e.g.

Frenken and Schor (2017) or Schor (2017), highlighting that it may

increase inequalities. Yet the impacts of CE’s social equity impacts re-

main largely unknown (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017; Murray

et al., 2017). Those who propose CE may be well-advised to state social

equity as one of its design variables, while starting to research its social

equity impacts.

Lastly, our coding examined references of CE deﬁnitions to future

generations –a core component of sustainable development, as outlined

previously. Yet Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, p.766) state that this time

dimension is excluded from “most [CE] discussions”. Indeed, only a

single deﬁnition, the deﬁnition by Geng et al. (2013), and thus less than

1% of our overall deﬁnitions, take it into account. One of the authors of

this paper has worked at a large consultancy that engaged with the CE

concept prior to joining academia. Short-term gains via CE were pro-

mised to attract contracts, but these are diﬃcult to materialize (DSGC,

2015, p.15 ﬀ.). Hence, several companies quickly lost interest again.

Consultants advising on CE may sell it not as a ‘quick win’, but a major

long-term undertaking. Selling it as the latter (which includes framing it

as an endeavour undertaken for future generations) can help ensure

that those interested in it will not give up too soon and we thus ﬁnd that

this long-term perspective must be included in all CE deﬁnitions.

3.4. Enabler of the circular economy

Some, e.g. Lewandowski (2016), claim that circular business models

are widely seen at the core of CE. They are “the driving force in the shift

towards [CE]”(EUKN, 2015). However, a lack of discussions around

business models within the CE discourse has been diagnosed by Lieder

and Rashid (2016, p.46 ﬀ.). Our coding results provide ample evidence

for this diagnosis. Business models are mentioned in only 11% of de-

ﬁnitions with Beek et al. (2016, p.8) arguing, for instance, that CE

comprises “business models [that] are based on longevity”. An increase

in the mentioning of business models can be observed from 2012 on-

wards (from 0% to 14%) –possibly because the deﬁnition by Ellen

MacArthur Foundation (2012) included business models. Furthermore,

business models are more prominent in practitioner deﬁnitions than

peer-reviewed ones (9% versus 14%) with the main reason likely being

that practitioners are more concerned than scholars with the “nuts and

bolts [of CE]”(van der Eijk, 2016, p.2) which is embodied by questions

regarding the business model. However, much more emphasis on

business models will be needed in future discourses if the private sector

is supposed to lead the transitions towards CE. A CE understanding

lacking business models is one with no driver at the steering wheel in

our point of view.

Furthermore, Ghisellini et al. (2016, p.19) note that “the promotion

of consumer responsibility is crucial for [CE]”, while Lieder and Rashid

(2016, p.45) also point out that circular supply chains must not only

consider the various production and distribution, but also consumption

processes. Similarly, Yuan et al. (2006, p.5) write that CE would require

novel “production processes and consumption activities”. Nevertheless,

we ﬁnd that only 19% of all deﬁnitions examined include consumption

with Moreau et al. (2017, p. 498) writing that CE entails “rethinking

[…] consumption”. This negligence of the consumer in CE deﬁnitions

may be reﬂective of a research gap regarding the consumers’perspec-

tive on CE with Borrello et al. (2017, p.1) writing that “little is known

about consumers’willingness to participate in [a CE]”. Authors ex-

cluding the consumer and thus possibly adopting a supply-side view

regarding CE risk developing business models that are unviable due to

lacking consumer demand, as noted by Repo and Anttonen (2017). The

consumer is the most central enabler of circular business models

(Gallaud and Laperche, 2016) and the consumer perspective may thus

be seen as the ﬂipside of the CE business model coin. We recommend

including it in any CE deﬁnition adopted.

3.5. Summary

The previous sections have demonstrated the most frequent CE

conceptualizations found in the set of 114 deﬁnitions. These results are

summarized in Table 5. Yet this summary must be read with caution.

While the coding revealed that many of the 114 deﬁnitions can be

grouped conceptually, a great abundance of conceptualizations re-

mains. Indeed, none of the most frequent CE dimensions outlined in

Table 5 even attains a simple majority among the entire sample of

deﬁnitions examined (economic prosperity, featured in 46% of deﬁni-

tions, is closest to this simple majority).

We note that this abundance of CE conceptualizations, this ‘circular

economy babble’, constitutes a serious challenge for scholars working

on this topic. Knowledge accumulation regarding the CE is diﬃcult if

scholar A conceptualizes the ‘how-to’of CE as recycling, while scholar B

considers the ‘how-to’as reducing, reusing and recycling, to provide an

illustrative example. If scholars are not aware of their conceptually

diﬀerent understanding of CE, knowledge accumulation attempts may

lead to misleading results. Dacin et al. (2010, p.38) has found that “the

current state of conceptual confusion [on social entrepreneurship]

serves as a barrier to […] advances in the ﬁeld”. The same fate may

apply to the young ﬁeld of CE research. Of those 114 deﬁnitions ex-

amined only three were found by both coders to include the 3R fra-

mework, the R hierarchy, a systems perspective, environmental quality,

economic prosperity and social equity –elements outlined as CE di-

mensions in Section 2of this paper. These are the deﬁnitions by Liu

et al. (2009),Lieder and Rashid (2016) and van Buren et al. (2016), all

quite lengthy (at least 140 words) which is understandable given the

many dimensions included. We ﬁnd all of them as a starting point for

future deliberations on CE. We ﬁnd that the deﬁnition by van Buren

et al. (2016, p.3), the briefest of the three deﬁnitions, is also the one

written with greatest clarity and we thus particularly recommend this

deﬁnition. We critically note regarding these deﬁnitions that the one by

Lieder and Rashid (2016) does not mention ‘Recover’, that the R hier-

archy could be more explicit in all three deﬁnitions, that all lack re-

ferences to future generations and that all fail to include business

models as an enabler of CE and that of these three deﬁnitions only van

Buren et al. (2016) mentions the consumer perspective. These are cri-

ticisms we have attempted to address with our deﬁnition provided in

Section 2.2.

4. Conclusion

The circular economy (CE) concept is trending and thus much lip

service is given to it these days. Trending concepts tend to diﬀuse in

their meaning and many have claimed that this has also happened to

the CE concept. While at least seven CE literature reviews have been

published so far, no comprehensive and systematic analysis speciﬁcally

on current CE understandings was conducted prior to this study, as far

as we are aware. We have gathered a comprehensive set of 114 CE

deﬁnitions and systematically analysed it against a coding framework

to provide transparency regarding current CE understandings. We ac-

knowledge that a CE understanding can be broader than a deﬁnition

presented with our study thus possibly exaggerating the negligence of

certain dimensions in CE understandings. Second, our approach to

systematically analysing deﬁnitions simpliﬁed and thus (at least

somewhat) distorted them since it quantiﬁed qualitative deﬁnitions. We

view this quantiﬁcation as necessary, though, to succinctly compare

many CE understandings and thus create transparency about them. This

transparency is the ﬁrst step to cohere the concept in our point of view

with our study hoping to contribute to the coherence of the CE concept.

A concept which fails to cohere may ultimately collapse or remain in a

deadlock due to permanent conceptual contention, not only in research,

but also in practice, since cumulative knowledge development on it is

J. Kirchherr et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 127 (2017) 221–232

228

impeded.

We deﬁned CE within our iteratively developed coding framework

as an economic system that replaces the ‘end-of-life’concept with re-

ducing, alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering materials in

production/distribution and consumption processes. It operates at the

micro level (products, companies, consumers), meso level (eco-in-

dustrial parks) and macro level (city, region, nation and beyond), with

the aim to accomplish sustainable development, thus simultaneously

creating environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity,

to the beneﬁt of current and future generations. It is enabled by novel

business models and responsible consumers. We hope that this CE de-

ﬁnition can be a contribution to the scholarly CE community with this

deﬁnition ideally serving as a conceptual foundation for future work on

the topic.

Our analysis of 114 deﬁnitions provides the ﬁrst quantitative evi-

dence that and how CE means many diﬀerent things to diﬀerent people,

as also indicated by a comment of a reviewer of this paper who noted,

upon skimming through the deﬁnitions analysed for this work, that

“some of the authors […] seem to have no idea about what [CE] is

about”. For instance, we found that some authors entirely equate CE

with recycling, whereas the most common conceptualization of the

‘how-to’of CE is a combination of reduce, reuse and recycling, the 3R

framework that is already outlined in the 2008 Circular Economy

Promotion Law of the People’s Republic of China. Practitioners fre-

quently neglect ‘reduce’in their CE deﬁnitions, though, assumingly

since this may imply curbing consumption and economic growth

Worryingly, we found that only a third of deﬁnitions explicate a

waste hierarchy. Examples of deﬁnitions that include a waste hierarchy

are Ness and Xing (2017),Song et al. (2015) and Allwood et al. (2011).

This lacking waste hierarchy in many CE conceptualizations was not

previously highlighted in the scholarly literature, as far as we are

aware. We consider deﬁnitions lacking waste hierarchies to be sub-

verted CE deﬁnitions since adopting such deﬁnitions can result in

companies that implement only minimal changes in their current

business model, e. g. increasing recycling, to claim that they are part of

CE. However, CE must be understood as a fundamental systemic change

instead of a bit of twisting of the status quo to ensure its impact. Yet

only around 40% of deﬁnitions conceptualize CE from a systems per-

spective. Previous scholarly work has also not highlighted that many CE

deﬁnitions lack this systems perspective, as far as we are aware.

Meanwhile, our analysis conﬁrmed previous authors’claim that

CE’s link to sustainable development is weak. We further revealed that

most authors see CE as an avenue for economic prosperity, whereas

previous scholars conducting narrative reviews of the CE literature had

argued that CE would be mostly concerned with environmental aims.

Unsurprisingly, the focus on economic prosperity is particularly pro-

minent among practitioner deﬁnitions. Meanwhile, we conﬁrmed pre-

vious scholarly writings arguing that CE understandings mostly neglect

the social considerations. Lastly, our review casts doubt regarding the

claim by some authors that novel business models are CE’s main enabler

since only very few deﬁnitions explicitly refer to business models. We

also found that only one out of ﬁve deﬁnitions consider the consumer as

a second enabler of CE. This resonates with previous scholarly writing

that outlines consumers as a research gap for the CE community.

We note that the conceptual muddle regarding CE evidenced by our

study does not suggest “to throw the [CE] baby out with the bath-

water”, as one reviewer of this paper wrote. The signiﬁcant momentum

gathered by the concept holds the promise that CE may be able to reach

beyond current sustainable development eﬀorts. However, a distinction

is needed between ideal and subverted CE deﬁnitions. If subverted

deﬁnitions start dominating, CE implementation will only result in in-

cremental improvements at best, with the CE concept then not deli-

vering on its promise of fundamental change. The CE concept may then

ultimately end up as just another buzzword in the sustainable devel-

opment discourse.

Those working on CE need to point it out when encountering

Table 5

Typical deﬁnitions of the circular economy.

Typical

deﬁnition (in

sample)

Full sample Before 2012 2012 or later Peer-reviewed Practitioner

Dimensions Reduce, reuse, recycle Reduce, reuse, recycle Reduce, reuse, recycle Reduce, reuse, recycle

Systems perspective Systems perspective Systems perspective

Economic prosperity Environmental quality Environmental quality Economic prosperity

Economic prosperity Economic prosperity Economic prosperity

Example “CE is [a] closed loop material ﬂow in

the whole economic system […]in

association with the so called 3R

principles […] Taking into account

economic aspects CE […] minimizes

matter […] without restricting

economic growth”(Lieder and Rashid

2016)

“[CE] is a mode of economic development

[…], requires compliance with ecological

laws […]. It is, essentially, an ecological

economy that follows the principles of

“reducing resource use, reusing, and

recycling”(Zhijun and Nailing 2007)

“CE is [a] closed loop material ﬂow in

the whole economic system […]in

association with the so called 3R

principles […] Taking into account

economic aspects CE […] minimizes

matter […] without restricting

economic growth”(Lieder and Rashid

2016)

“The core of CE [are] the ‘3R’

principles—reduction, reuse, and recycling of

materials and energy. […] The approach is

expected to achieve an eﬃcient economy while

discharging fewer pollutants. The strategy requires

complete reform of the whole system of human

activity”(Yuan et al., 2006, p.5)

“[CE] is about decoupling growth from

resource consumption […]. It’s about

designing products [that] are easier to

reuse or recycle.[…](Dupont-Inglis

2015)

Note: Most frequent 4R combination listed in ‘dimensions’.‘Systems perspective’,‘environmental quality’and ‘economic prosperity’listed in ‘dimensions’if ≥40% in coding for at least one coder (as depicted in Tables 3 and 4). Example deﬁnitions

are abridged and thus stylized; full sample = All 114 deﬁnitions.

J. Kirchherr et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 127 (2017) 221–232

229

subverted CE deﬁnitions. Furthermore, we believe that describing good

CE implementation examples can help sharpen the understanding of the

CE concept both among scholars and practitioners. These good practices

are not hard to ﬁnd, as they can be historically found everywhere in the

form of pre-industrial production systems. Our practical experience

suggests that there are also many contemporary good CE practices.

More scholarly work detailing these practices (which also need to be

communicated in popular media outlets) would do a service to those

keen on the concept. Detailing these practices must also include ana-

lyses of how barriers encountered while implementing them were

overcome –these analyses would be most instructive for practitioners.

Future research may also focus on those dimensions identiﬁed in this

study that are neglected by many working on CE, e. g. the consumer

perspective. For instance, more research on the consumer perspective

could help to highlight pathways to enhance their contribution to CE.

Any such future CE research needs to be grounded in a deliberate CE

conceptualization to foster cumulative knowledge development on this

topic.

Disclosure statement

No potential conﬂicts of interests were reported by the authors.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Rasmus Bellmer for his contributions to this

paper as a research assistant. Furthermore, we are thankful to three

anonymous reviewers at Resources, Conservation and Recycling for their

constructive comments on this piece of work.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the

online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005.

References

Allwood, J.M., et al., 2011. Material eﬃciency: a white paper resources. Conserv.

Recycling 55 (3), 362–381.

Beek, M. van, et al., 2016. From Rhetoric to Reality: The Circular Economy Index of Dutch

Businesses. Available at. http://mvonederland.nl/sites/default/ﬁles/media/Circular

Economy Index 2016.pdf.

Berger, P., Luckmann, T., 1966. The Social Construction of Reality—A Treatise in the

Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin Press, London, United Kingdom.

Blomsma, F., Brennan, G., 2017. The emergence of circular economy: a new framing

around prolonging resource productivity. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 603–614. Available at:

http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jiec.12603 [Accessed July 10, 2017].

Bocken, N.M.P., et al., 2017. Taking the circularity to the next level: a on the circular

economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 476–482(Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/

jiec.12606 [Accessed July 11, 2017]).

Borrello, M., et al., 2017. Consumers’perspective on circular economy strategy for re-

ducing food waste. Sustainability 9 (1)(p.141 Available at: http://www.mdpi.com/

2071-1050/9/1/141 [Accessed September 2, 2017]).

Bourque, L.B., 2004. Coding frame. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research

Methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, United States.

Braungart, M., McDonough, W., 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make

Things. North Point Press, New York, United States.

Brennan, G., Tennant, M., Blomsma, F., 2015. Business and production solutions: closing

loops and the circular economy. In: Kopnina, H., Blewitt, J. (Eds.), Sustainability: Key

Issues. Routledge, London, United Kingdom.

Carroll, A.B., 1999. Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a deﬁnitional construct.

Business & Society 38 (3), 268–295. Available at: http://bas.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/

10.1177/000765039903800303 [Accessed February 23, 2017].

Charonis, G.-K., 2012. Degrowth, steady state economics and the circular economy: three

distinct yet increasingly converging alternative discourses to economic growth for

achieving environmental sustainability and social equity. World Economics

Association (WEA) Conferences Available at: http://sustainabilityconference2012.

weaconferences.net/papers/degrowth-steady-state-economics-and-the-circular-

economy-three-distinct-yet-increasingly-converging-alternative-discourses-to-

economic-growth-for-achieving-environmental-sustainability-and-soci.

Circular Academy, 2017. Circular Economy: Some Deﬁnitions. Available at. http://

www.circular.academy/circular-economy-some-deﬁnitions/.

Conticelli, E., Tondelli, S., 2014. Eco-industrial parks and sustainable spatial planning: a

possible contradiction? Adm. Sci. 331–349. Available at: http://www.mdpi.com/

2076-3387/4/3/331 [Accessed March 7, 2017].

Cullen, J.M., 2017. Circular economy: theoretical benchmark or perpetual motion ma-

chine? J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 483–486. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/

jiec.12599 [Accessed July 11, 2017].

DSGC, 2015. Circular Economy: DSGC Companies on Their Journey of Implementing

Circular Business Models. Available at. https://www.vno-ncw.nl/sites/default/ﬁles/

circular_economy_dsgc.pdf.

Dacin, P.A., Dacin, M.T., Matear, M., 2010. Social entrepreneurship: why we don’t need a

new theory and how we move forward from here. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 24 (3),

37–57.

Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How corporate social responsibility is deﬁned: an analysis of 37

deﬁnitions. Corporate Soc. Responsibility Environ. Manag. 15 (1), 1–13. Available at:

http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/csr.132 [Accessed February 16, 2017].

Davis, G.G., Hall, J.A., 2006. Circular Economy Legislation ? The International

Experience. Available at: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t & rct=

j & q= & esrc=s & source=web & cd=1 & ved=

0ahUKEwjLwbvbw4LRAhUaIFAKHdXJA1wQFggjMAA & url=http%3A%2F

%2Fsiteresources.worldbank.org%2FINTEAPREGTOPENVIRONMENT%2FResources

%2FCircularEconomy_Legal_IntExperience_ExecSummary_EN.doc & usg=AFQ.

Dupont-Inglis, J., 2015. Circular economy: all eyes on the juncker commission’s next

move. SUSCHEM Available at. http://suschem.blogspot.nl/2015/04/circular-

economy-all-eyes-on-juncker.html.

EUKN, 2015. The Circular City: Lessons from Europe. Available at. http://www.eukn.

eu/ﬁleadmin/Files/Policy_labs/2015_jun_18/Brief_factsheet_ﬁnal_version.docx.

EY, 2015. Are You Ready for the Circular Economy? The Necessity of an Integrated

Approach. Available at. http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-brochure-

cas-are-you-ready-for-the-circular-economy/$FILE/EY-brochure-cas-are-you-ready-

for-the-circular-economy.pdf.

Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.

Capstone Publishing, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012. Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and

Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition. Available at. https://www.

ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Ellen-MacArthur-

Foundation-Towards-the-Circular-Economy-vol.1.pdf.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013a. Circular Economy Overview. Available at. https://

www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/overview/concept.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013b. Towards the circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 1

(1), 4–8.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2014. Towards the Circular Economy: Accelerating the

Scale-up Across Global Supply Chains. Available at. http://www3.weforum.or/

docs/WEF_ENV_TowardsCircularEconomy_Report_2014.pdf.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017. Priority Research Agenda. Available at. https://

www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/higher-education/EMF_

Priority-Research-Agenda-copy.pdf.

Engelman, R., 2013. Beyond Sustainababble. In State of the World 2013. Island Press/

Center for Resource Economics, Washington, DC, pp. 3–16 Available at: http://

link.springer.com/10.5822/978-1-61091–458-1_1 [Accessed July 10, 2017].

European Commission, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of

the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives.

Available at. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=

CELEX:32008L0098&from=EN.

Fang, Y., Côté, R.P., Qin, R., 2007. Industrial sustainability in China: practice and pro-

spects for eco-industrial development. J. Environ. Manag. 83 (3), 315–328. Available

at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301479706001216 [Accessed

March 6, 2017].

Frenken, K., Schor, J., 2017. Putting the sharing economy into perspective.

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. Available at http://linkinghub.

elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2210422417300114 [Accessed March 6, 2017].

Fulton, S.C., 2012. Twenty years after the rio earth summit: what is the agenda for the

2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development? Proceedings of the

Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 91–94.

Gallaud, D., Laperche, B., 2016. Circular Economy, Industrial Ecology and Short Supply

Chain. Wiley Blackwell, London, United Kingdom.

Gartner, 2016. Market Share Analysis: Consulting Services, Worldwide, 2015. Available

at. https://www.gartner.com/doc/3317117/market-share-analysis-consulting-

services.

Geissdoerfer, M., et al., 2017. The circular economy –a new sustainability paradigm. J.

Clean. Prod. 143, 757–768.

Geng, Y., et al., 2009. Assessment of the national eco-Industrial park standard for pro-

moting industrial symbiosis in China. J. Ind. Ecol. 13 (1), 15–26 Available at: http://

doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00071.x [Accessed March 7, 2017].

Geng, Y., et al., 2013. Measuring China’s circular economy. Science 339 (6127).

George, D.A.R., Lin, B.C., Chen, Y., 2015. A Circular Economy Model of Economic

Growth.

Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the expected

transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean.

Prod. 114, 11–32. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/

S0959652615012287 [Accessed August 18, 2016].

Gladek, E., 2017. The Seven Pillars of the Circular Economy. Available at. http://www.

metabolic.nl/the-seven-pillars-of-the-circular-economy/.

Goldberg, T., 2017. What about the circularity of hazardous materials? J. Ind. Ecol.

Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jiec.12585 [Accessed July 13, 2017].

Haney, W.M.C.E., 1998. Drawing on education: using student drawings to promote

middle school improvement. Sch. Middle 7 (3), 38–43.

Hannon, E., Kuhlmann, M., Thaidigsmann, B., 2016. Developing Products for a Circular

Economy. Available at. http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/

J. Kirchherr et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 127 (2017) 221–232

230

sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/developing-products-for-a-

circular-economy.

Heeres, R.R., Vermeulen, W.J.V., deWalle, F.B., 2004. Eco-industrial park initiatives in

the USA and the Netherlands : ﬁrst lessons. J. Clean. Prod. 12 (8–10), 985–995.

Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652604000873

[Accessed March 7, 2017].

Hestin, M., Chanoine, A., Menten, F., 2016. Circular Economy Potential for Climate

Change Mitigation. Available at. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/

Deloitte/ﬁ/Documents/risk/Deloitte-Circular economy and Global Warming.pdf.

Hirsch, P.M., Levin, D.Z., 1999. Umbrella advocates versus validity police: a life-Cycle

model. Organ. Sci. 10, 199–212. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2640312

[Accessed July 10, 2017].

Hobson, K., 2016. Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for

the circular economy. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 40 (1), 88–104. Available at: http://

journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0309132514566342 [Accessed February 16,

2017].

Hruschka, D.J., et al., 2004. Reliability in coding open-Ended data: lessons learned from

HIV behavioral research. Field Methods 16 (3), 307–331. Available at: http://fmx.

sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1525822X04266540 [Accessed February 23, 2017].

Jackson, M., Lederwasch, A., Giurco, D., 2014. Transitions in theory and practice:

managing metals in the circular economy. Resources 3 (3), 516–543. Available at:

http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/3/3/516/ [Accessed March 21, 2017].

Jiao, W., Boons, F., 2014. Toward a research agenda for policy intervention and facil-

itation to enhance industrial symbiosis based on a comprehensive literature review. J.

Clean. Prod. 67, 14–25.

Johnston, K., Beatson, A., 2005. Managerial Conceptualisations of Corporate Social

Responsibility: An Exploratory Study. Available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

[Accessed February 23, 2017].

King, A.M., et al., 2006. Reducing waste: repair, recondition, remanufacture or recycle?

Sustainable Development 14 (4), 257–267. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.

1002/sd.271 [Accessed February 24, 2017].

Kipping, M., Clark, T., 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Management Consulting. Oxford

University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Kirchherr, J., Pohlner, H., Charles, K.J., 2016. Cleaning up the big muddy: a meta-

synthesis of the research on the social impact of dams. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.

60, 115–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.02.007.

Lacy, P., et al., 2015. Circular Advantage: Innovative Business Models and Technologies

to Create Value in a World Without Limits to Growth. Available at: https://www.

accenture.com/t20150523T053139__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/Accenture/Conversion-

Assets/DotCom/Documents/Global/PDF/Strategy_6/Accenture-Circular-Advantage-

Innovative-Business-Models-Technologies-Value-Growth.pdf.

Lewandowski, M., 2016. Designing the Business Models for Circular Economy—Towards

the Conceptual Framework. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/78c1/

025b21e46bb2ﬀ0a3e668b8853ba148829e4.pdf [Accessed July 10, 2017].

Li, H., et al., 2010. Energy conservation and circular economy in China’s process in-

dustries. Energy 35 (11), 4273–4281. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/

retrieve/pii/S0360544209001121 [Accessed March 7, 2017].

Lieder, M., Rashid, A., 2016. Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehen-

sive review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 115, 36–51.

Linder, M., Sarasini, S., van Loon, P., 2017. A metric for quantifying product-Level cir-

cularity. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 545–558. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/

jiec.12552 [Accessed July 11, 2017].

Liu, Q., et al., 2009. A survey and analysis on public awareness and performance for

promoting circular economy in China: a case study from Tianjin. J. Clean. Prod. 17

(2), 265–270. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/

S0959652608001479 [Accessed March 6, 2017].

Loiseau, E., et al., 2016. Green economy and related concepts: an overview. J. Clean.

Prod. 139, 361–371.

McDonough, W., Braungart, M., 2001. The Next Industrial Revolution. In Sustainable

Solutions: Developing Products and Services for the Future. Greenleaf Publishing Ltd,

Sheﬃeld, United Kingdom.

Moir, L., 2001. What do we mean by corporate social responsibility? Corp. Gov. 1 (2),

16–22. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/10.1108/

EUM0000000005486 [Accessed February 23, 2017].

Moreau, V., et al., 2017. Coming full circle: why social and institutional dimensions

matter for the circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 497–506. Available at: http://

doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jiec.12598 [Accessed July 11, 2017].

Murray, A., Skene, K., Haynes, K., 2017. The circular economy: an interdisciplinary ex-

ploration of the concept and application in a global context. J. Bus. Ethics 140 (3),

369–380. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2

[Accessed February 16, 2017].

Naudé, M., 2011. Sustainable development in companies: theoretical dream or im-

plementable reality? Corporate Ownership Control J. 8, 352–364.

Ness, D.A., Xing, K., 2017. Toward a resource-Eﬃcient built environment: a literature

review and conceptual model. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 572–592. Available at: http://doi.

wiley.com/10.1111/jiec.12586 [Accessed July 25, 2017].

Neuendorf, K.A., 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook. SAGE Publications, Thousand

Oaks, United States.

Neugebauer, S., et al., 2015. Enhancing the practical implementation of life cycle sus-

tainability assessment ?proposal of a Tiered approach. J. Clean. Prod. 102, 165–176.

Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652615004217

[Accessed July 11, 2017.

Niero, M., et al., 2017. Combining eco-eﬃciency and eco-Eﬀectiveness for continuous

loop beverage packaging systems: lessons from the carlsberg circular community. J.

Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 742–753. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jiec.12554

[Accessed July 13, 2017].

O’Dwyer, B., 2003. Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of man-

agerial capture. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16 (4), 523–557.

Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/10.1108/09513570310492290

[Accessed February 23, 2017].

OECD, 2016. Farm Management Practices to Foster Green Growth. Available at. http://

www.oecd.org/publications/farm-management-practices-to-foster-green-growth-

9789264238657-en.htm.

Olswang, L.B., et al., 2006. Reliability issues and solutions for coding social commu-

nication performance in classroom settings. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 1058.

Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17077214 [Accessed February

23, 2017].

PRC, 2008. Circular Economy Promotion Law of the People’s Republic of China.

Available at. https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/sites/ppp.

worldbank.org/ﬁles/documents/China_CircularEconomyLawEnglish.pdf.

Palmer, G., 1992. The earth summit: what went wrong at rio? Washington Univ. Law Rev.

70 (4). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol70/iss4/1

[Accessed January 28, 2017].

Peltonen, L., 2017. Notes on Multilevel Governance and Climate Change. Available at.

http://cor.europa.eu/en/activities/governance/documents/1a0bb3a3-0768-4c90-

a732-3074c47f7b7c.pdf.

Potting, J., et al., 2017. Circular Economy: Measuring Innovation in the Product Chain.

Available at. http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/ﬁles/cms/publicaties/pbl-2016-

circular-economy-measuring-innovation-in-product-chains-2544.pdf.

Preston, F., 2012. A Global Redesign? Shaping the Circular Economy. Available at.

http://www.ecoconnect.org.uk/download/Shaping the Circular Economy.pdf.

Price, J.L., Joseph, J.B., 2000. Demand management –a basis for waste policy: a critical

review of the applicability of the waste hierarchy in terms of achieving sustainable

waste management. Sustainable Development. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/

10.1002/%28SICI%291099-1719%28200005%298%3A2%3C96%3A%3AAID-

SD133%3E3.0.CO%3B2-J [Accessed March 6, 2017].

RCR, 2017. Guide for Authors. Available at. https://www.elsevier.com/journals/

resources-conservation-and-recycling/0921-3449/guide-for-authors.

Redclift, M., 1989. The environmental consequences of Latin America’s agricultural de-

velopment: some thoughts on the Brundtland Commission report. World Dev. 17 (3),

365–377.

Reh, L., 2013. Process engineering in circular economy. Particuology 11 (2), 119–133.

Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1674200113000023

[Accessed March 22, 2017].

Reike, D., Vermeulen, W.J.V., Sjors, W., 2017. The circular economy: new or Refurbished

as CE 3.0?—Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy

through a focus on history and value retention options. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.

Repo, P., Anttonen, M., 2017. Emerging consumer perspectives on circular economy. The

13th Nordic Environmental Social Science Conference HopefulNESS Available at.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317596538_Emerging_consumer_

perspectives_on_circular_economy.

Saidani, M., et al., 2017. Heavy vehicles on the road towards the circular economy:

analysis and comparison with the automotive industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycling. .

Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921344917301714

[Accessed July 25, 2017].

Sakr, D., et al., 2011. Critical success and limiting factors for eco-industrial parks: global

trends and Egyptian context. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (11), 1158–1169.

Sanders, C.B., Cuneo, C.J., 2010. Social reliability in qualitative team research. Sociology

44 (2), 325–343. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/

0038038509357194 [Accessed February 23, 2017].

Sauvé, S., Bernard, S., Sloan, P., 2016. Environmental sciences: sustainable development

and circular economy: alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary research. Environ.

Dev. 17, 48–56.

Schor, J.B., 2017. Does the Sharing Economy Increase Inequality Within the Eighty

Percent?: Findings from a Qualitative Study of Platform Providers. Available at.

http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/ﬁles/schools/cas_sites/sociology/pdf/

SharingEconomyInequality.pdf.

Schut, E., Crielaard, M., Mesman, M., 2015. Circular Economy in the Dutch Construction

Sector: A Perspective for the Market and Government. Available at. http://www.

rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid=806b288e-3ae9-47f1-a28f-7c208f884b36&type=org&

disposition=inline.

Science, 2017. Science Information for Authors. Available at. http://www.sciencemag.

org/authors/science-information-authors.

Shi, H., Chertow, M., Song, Y., 2010. Developing country experience with eco-industrial

parks: a case study of the Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Area in

China. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (3), 191–199. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/

retrieve/pii/S0959652609003242 [Accessed March 7, 2017].

Sihvonen, S., Ritola, T., 2015. Conceptualizing ReX for aggregating end-of-life strategies

in product development. Proc. CIRP 29, 639–644. Available at: http://linkinghub.

elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2212827115000293 [Accessed February 24, 2017].

Skene, K.R., 2017. Circles, spirals, pyramids and cubes: why the circular economy cannot

work. Sustainability Sci. 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0443-3.

Song, Q., Li, J., Zeng, X., 2015. Minimizing the increasing solid waste through zero waste

strategy. J. Clean. Prod. 104, 199–210. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/

retrieve/pii/S095965261400849X [Accessed March 21, 2017].

Stahel, W.R., 2014. Reuse is the key to the circular economy. European Commission

Available at. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/about-eco-innovation/

experts-interviews/reuse-is-the-key-to-the-circular-economy_en.

Swert, K. De, 2012. Calculating Inter-coder Reliability in Media Content Analysis Using

Krippendorﬀ’s Alpha. Available at. http://www.polcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/

ICR01022012.pdf.

Taylor, S.J., 2016. A Review of Sustainable Development Principles. Available at. http://

J. Kirchherr et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 127 (2017) 221–232

231

mri.scnatweb.ch/en/afromontcontent/afromont-discussion-documents/2602-

sustainable-development-review-2016/ﬁle.

Toxopeus, M.E., De Koeijer, B.L.A., Meij, A.G.G.H., 2015. ScienceDirect cradle to cradle:

eﬀective vision vs. eﬃcient practice? Procedia CIRP 29, 384–389. Available at: www.

sciencedirect.com [Accessed July 11, 2017].

UNEP, 2011. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and

Poverty Eradication. Available at. http://web.unep.org/greeneconomy/sites/unep.

org.greeneconomy/ﬁles/ﬁeld/image/green_economyreport_ﬁnal_dec2011.pdf.

WBCSD, 2017. Our Approach. Available at. http://www.wbcsd.org/Overview/Our-

approach.

WCED, 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our

Common Future. Available at. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.

pdf.

Yan, J., Wu, N., 2011. Technology supporting system of circular economy of mining cities.

In: 2011 Asia-Paciﬁc Power and Energy Engineering Conference. IEEE. pp. 1–5.

Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5749062/ [Accessed March 21,

2017].

Yuan, Z., Bi, J., Moriguichi, Y., 2006. The circular economy: a new development strategy

in China. J. Ind. Ecol. 10 (1–2), 4–8. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1162/

108819806775545321 [Accessed March 6, 2017].

Zahra, S.A., et al., 2009. A typology of social entrepreneurs: motives, search processes and

ethical challenges. J. Bus. Venturing 24 (5), 519–532.

Zhijun, F., Nailing, Y., 2007. Putting a circular economy into practice in China.

Sustainability Sci. 2 (1), 95–101. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/

s11625-006-0018-1 [Accessed March 21, 2017].

Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Lai, K., 2010a. Circular economy practices among Chinese manu-

facturers varying in environmental-oriented supply chain cooperation and the per-

formance implications. J. Environ. Manag. 91 (6), 1324–1331. Available at: http://

linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301479710000411 [Accessed March 22,

2017].

Zhu, L., et al., 2010b. A method for controlling enterprises access to an eco-industrial

park. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (20), 4817–4825.

de Vries, B.J.M., Petersen, A.C., 2009. Conceptualizing sustainable development: an as-

sessment methodology connecting values, knowledge, worldviews and scenarios.

Ecol. Econ. 68 (4), 1006–1019. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/

article/pii/S0921800908005016 [Accessed April 12, 2017].

van Buren, N., et al., 2016. Towards a circular economy: the role of dutch logistics in-

dustries and governments. Sustainability 647. Available at: http://www.mdpi.com/

2071-1050/8/7/647 [Accessed February 24, 2017].

van den Brande, K., Happaerts, S., Bouteligier, S., 2011. Keeping the sustainable devel-

opment ﬂame alive. Broker 1–4.

van der Eijk, A., 2016. Commissioner Timmerman’s Circular Economy Package Lacks

Detail. Available at. http://www.wastematters.eu/uploads/media/DWMA_

Commissioner_Timmermans__circular_economy_package_lacks_detail.pdf.

J. Kirchherr et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 127 (2017) 221–232

232

Accelerating the transition from a linear to a circular healthcare sector: ESCH-R: study design and methodology

Article

Mar 2025

Nicole G M Hunfeld

Due to the significant environmental impact of healthcare, there is an urgent need to accelerate its circular transition. We provide an overview of the ESCH-R project study design and methodology for accelerating the transition from a linear to a circular healthcare sector through the development and implementation of circular interventions in the Netherlands. Using a transdisciplinary approach, we will apply the 10-R ladder framework for a circular economy to hospitals. Methods are presented to analyze current clinical practices, policies and requirements for sustainable behavioral change, from material flows and operations to policy and regulations. We describe methods for the development of circular interventions, including business models, contract templates, and product redesigns. Finally, our approach to dissemination and education is presented. The described study design and methods can be used by other hospital (settings) to identify environmental hotspots for circular interventions in their own healthcare practice and for the cross-transfer of knowledge and anticipated challenges in implementing circular strategies. Ultimately, the ESCH-R project will deliver innovative, scalable approaches for hospitals to reduce procurement of raw materials, retain value of medical products, and reduce waste streams, CO2 emissions and pollution.

Circular economy in aquaculture: An Italian survey to understand perceptions, challenges and options for transition

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2025
MAR POLICY

Bruno Ricca

Aquaculture is a rapidly growing sector that significantly contributes to global food security but faces environmental challenges, including resource depletion, pollution, and waste generation. To address these issues, circular economy (CE) principles are promoted to enhance sustainability by reducing resource use, reusing materials, and recycling outputs. However, CE adoption at the farm level remains underexplored, particularly regarding producers' knowledge and perspectives. This study investigates the understanding and implementation of CE practices among aquaculture producers in Italy, focusing on their preferences, challenges, and perceived opportunities. A structured online survey was distributed to 220 members of the Italian Aquaculture Association (API), achieving a 47 % response rate, encompassing both freshwater and marine systems. The findings reveal that while many farmers are aware of CE principles, their understanding is largely confined to environmental aspects, often neglecting economic and social benefits. Medium-sized farms in Central Italy and freshwater producers show greater adoption of CE practices, whereas smaller farms face regulatory and technological barriers. A lack of tools to measure the impact of circular practices emerged as a key obstacle, limiting effective implementation. The study highlights that waste management is not seen as a significant cost barrier, and opportunities for business diversification through CE practices are under-recognized. Addressing knowledge gaps, providing practical tools, and streamlining regulations are crucial to overcoming barriers. This research offers insights to guide future policies and initiatives aimed at fostering circularity in aquaculture, promoting a more resilient and competitive industry.

Balancing Strategies for Sustainable Growth in International Business

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2025

The purpose of this research is to investigate the critical importance of adopting a holistic approach to sustainable growth in international business. Through a comprehensive review of existing literature, this study examines the integration of economic, environmental, and social dimensions into business decision-making processes, with a focus on corporate sustainability initiatives, technological innovation, and stakeholder engagement. The research design and methodology involve a systematic analysis of theoretical frameworks, empirical studies, and case examples to elucidate key concepts and identify emerging trends in the field. Findings suggest that adopting a triple-bottom-line approach, which incorporates economic, environmental, and social considerations, is crucial for achieving sustainable growth and resilience in today's interconnected global economy. Corporate sustainability initiatives play a vital role in aligning business strategies with principles of sustainable development, enabling businesses to enhance reputation, build trust with stakeholders, and drive innovation. The implications of this research underscore the need for businesses to embrace sustainability as a core principle and integrate sustainability considerations into core business operations. By leveraging technological innovation, fostering stakeholder engagement, and promoting responsible consumption, businesses can contribute to a more sustainable and prosperous future for all.

Mapping the prevalence and size of the informal circular economy in an industrialised region

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025
RESOUR CONSERV RECY

As the circular economy (CE) gained significant attention over the past decade, most research focuses on activities in the formal economy, overlooking substantial contributions from the informal economy. The informal economy, encompassing unmeasured productive activities, involves 60 % of workers and 80 % of enterprises globally. While informal waste management in the Global South received substantial scholarly attention, the informal CE in industrialised nations, particularly in activities such as repair, reuse, sharing, and refurbishing, is underexplored. This paper is the first to estimate the encompassing prevalence and economic weight of these informal CE activities in an industrialised region, using administrative and survey data for Flanders (Belgium). Our findings reveal that the informal CE plays a significant role, especially regarding higher circularity strategies. The paper outlines a roadmap for mapping the informal CE in other industrialised regions and discusses perspectives on integrating informal activities into formal CE frameworks to foster a just transition.

Circular Economy and Corporate Sustainability: Shaping New Business Models for a Resilient Future

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025

The challenges of sustainability and the circular economy require innovative concepts, tools, methods and business models that adopt a holistic approach and incorporate the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) perspective. Adopting circularity is a strategic choice that significantly reshapes business models and the framework for achieving and measuring performance. The present paper explores the connection between the circular economy, corporate sustainability, and the emergence of next-generation business models through a methodology that combines literature review with two bibliometric analyses. The research findings underscore the significance of corporate sustainability as a central theme and identify the implementation of the circular economy as a key factor in enhancing organizational performance and achieving alignment with sustainability goals. Innovation has been identified as a critical driver, enabling the transition toward sustainable practices and addressing the pressures associated with the circular economy. It should be emphasized that business models, in particular sustainable, circular and innovative ones, are critical for driving corporate sustainability and creating sustainable shared value. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the fundamental role of management and strategy in facilitating the successful implementation of circular initiatives. The research also highlights that emerging Industry 4.0 technologies, such as big data and artificial intelligence, are exerting a transformative influence on the advancement of circular economy practices.

Circular skillsets for the Fourth Industrial Revolution: optimising resource efficiency through technology and talent

Article

Mar 2025

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine how skill development in Industry 4.0 can affect the Circular Economy (CE) business model, with the goal of ensuring that the CE business model maximises value co-creation to keep products and resources as reusable as possible. Design/methodology/approach The research design entails a qualitative study using a mixed-methods approach, which integrates bibliometric analysis. This study uses a mixed-methods approach, combining a systematic literature review, thematic analysis and semi-structured expert interviews. Its objective is to explore the skills necessary for organisations to harness Industry 4.0 and innovate sustainable CE models. Bibliometric analysis was used to identify publications and keywords in the field of CE and Industry 4.0. Thematic analysis was conducted to extract key concepts and themes from peer-reviewed articles. Subsequently, frameworks for Mapping Skills of Industry 4.0 and CE were proposed based on the key concepts and themes extracted from the thematic analysis. Findings This study’s findings close a knowledge gap at the nexus of skill development, Industry 4.0 and a sustainable CE. This study presents a conceptual framework based on the aforementioned connections that might assist organisations in realigning their management practices and strategies for future skill development related to CE’s business model deployment. This study identifies the need for “must-have” skills and “good-to-have” skills for the CE business model related to Industry 4.0. This study emphasises the importance of higher education institutions in redesigning curricula and educational approaches for building soft skills and technological abilities in accordance with the CE paradigm. The identification of “must-have” and “good-to-have” skills for CE business models related to Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies can inform organisations’ talent management strategies, employee training programs and skill development initiatives. Practical implications The research can inform policymakers and industry regulators in developing policies, guidelines and incentives that promote the adoption of 4IR technologies and CE principles while also addressing the associated skill development needs. Originality/value This study offers a novel and timely examination of the critical intersections between skill development for Industry 4.0 and the CE business models. The conceptual framework presented in this research provides a fresh perspective on optimising value co-creation within CE models by aligning human capital capabilities with the technological requirements. By identifying the “must-have” and “good-to-have” skills needed to support CE business models in the context of Industry 4.0, this study offers valuable insights to guide organisational talent management, employee training and educational curriculum redesign.

Problems and factors influencing the development of the circular economy principles in Kazakhstan

Article

Mar 2025

Many countries have begun to form new concepts of effective management that simultaneously support the ecosystem of the planet and ensure economic growth, as a result of which a circular economy model of the economy has been developed. Strategies for the transition to a circular model have been adopted at the state level in the European Union, China, Japan, and South Korea. The purpose of the study is to form a mechanism for a circular business model in order to increase the level of efficiency of the agro-industrial complex, taking into account the problems and factors affecting the development of the circular economy. Determining the most appropriate method of transforming the business model of an enterprise according to complex ecological and economic criteria and forming an integrated mechanism for the development of a circular model of an enterprise is an important scientific and practical task that requires immediate solution. The value of the conducted research lies in the development of mechanisms for the transition of agricultural enterprises to a circular model and the formation of an optimal circular model. The practical significance of the results of the work are the republican and regional authorities that develop regional programs and projects for the development of a closed cycle of the economy, as well as agro-industrial enterprises and companies dealing with sustainable development and waste management issues.

Assessing applications of emerging technologies in a data-driven era of sustainability and challenges

Article

Mar 2025
TECHNOL FORECAST SOC

The Business Case for Circular Economy: A Co‐Evolutionary Perspective for Integrating Moral Cases Into Circular Economy Business Cases

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025

The ongoing debate in corporate sustainability (CS) about the moral case versus the business case has recently made its way into the circular economy ( CE ) discourse, bringing with it new tradeoffs. Although the business case perspective emphasizes profitability, critics argue that the moral case must go beyond profit motives and include environmental and social goals. Despite the growing importance of this debate, a detailed analysis comparing the tradeoffs between business and moral cases within a CE context has been largely bypassed in the literature. This article aims to bridge this gap by exploring the contrasts between these cases and highlighting the co‐evolutionary relationship between them in the context of a CE transition. Our contributions to the debate are threefold: (1) We argue that many perceived limitations in the contemporary debate arise from viewing tradeoffs as statically inevitable rather than dynamically resolvable. (2) We conceptualize a co‐evolutionary relationship between business and moral cases, suggesting that over time, by innovative governance, elements of moral cases can be transformed into CE business cases. (3) We propose a definition of the business case for CE (i.e., CE business cases) contending that the profit motive inherent in business can, through innovative CE governance, be aligned with circularity and societal well‐being.

Implications of Circular Strategies on Energy, Water, and GHG Emissions in Informal Housing in Lima

Preprint

Jan 2025

The circular economy: New or Refurbished as CE 3.0? — Exploring Controversies in the Conceptualization of the Circular Economy through a Focus on History and Resource Value Retention Options

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2017
RESOUR CONSERV RECY

Over the last decade, the concept of the circular economy has regained attention, especially related to efforts to achieve a more sustainable society. The ‘revival’ of the circular economy has been accompanied by controversies and confusions across different actors in science and practice. With this article we attempt at contributing to advanced clarity in the field and providing a heuristic that is useful in practice. Initially, we take a focus on the historical development of the concept of circular economy and value retention options (ROs) for products and materials aiming for increased circularity. We propose to distinguish three phases in the evolution of the circular economy and argue that the concept – in its dominant framing – is not as new as frequently claimed. Having established this background knowledge, we give insights into ‘how far we are’ globally, with respect to the implementation of circularity, arguing that high levels of circularity have already been reached in different parts of the globe with regard to longer loop value retention options, such as energy recovery and recycling. Subsequently, we show that the confusion surrounding the circular economy is more far-reaching the divergent scholarly perspectives on retention options and unite the most common views a 10Rtypology. e conclude that policymakers and businesses should focus their efforts on realization of the more desirable, shorter loop retention options, like remanufacturing, refurbishing and repurposing – yet with a view on feasibility and overall system effects. Scholars, on the other hand, should assist the parties contributing to an increased circular economy in practice by taking up a more active role in attaining consensus in conceptualizing the circular economy.

Circular Economy: Measuring innovation in the product chain

Book

Full-text available

Jan 2017

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2016-circular-economy-measuring-innovation-in-product-chains-2544.pdf

Heavy vehicles on the road towards the circular economy: Analysis and comparison with the automotive industry

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2018
RESOUR CONSERV RECY

With 270 million light vehicles and 20 million heavy-duty and off-road (HDOR) vehicles in use in the European Union, automotive and HDOR industries are two major sectors in the European economy. Each year, 12 million light vehicles plus 1 million HDOR vehicles reach their end-of-life. In a context of circular economy, following questions are of growing concern. To what extent is the circular economy achieved and implemented in the automotive and HDOR sectors? What industrial practices and regulations are prevalent and commendable in the light of the circular economy? While the end-of-life management of light vehicles − subjected to the ELV Directive 2000/53/EC – is widely studied in literature, the end-of-life stage of HDOR vehicles has been neglected for a long time from a research perspective. To fill this gap, extensive literature survey and in-depth investigations on the industrial ground are conducted. Key factors – i.e. regulations, business models and markets evolution, new and emerging technologies integration – affecting the circular economy performance of automotive and HDOR sectors are analysed. Notably, not only lessons learned from best industrial practices but also remaining challenges for a more circular economy are highlighted. Both industries are compared through the four buildings blocks of the circular economy and the four possible feedback loops defined by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. As a result, this research contribution could lead to practical applications, for instance, in supporting industrial practitioners or policy makers to realize the opportunities and challenges of closing the loops of HDOR vehicles from different perspectives.

Emerging consumer perspectives on circular economy

Conference Paper

Full-text available

Jun 2017

The concept of circular economy has become a catchphrase for describing redesign of industries and economies towards better sustainability. The consideration of consumers holds a prominent role in the concept, yet consumers are not well accounted for in literature on circular economy. This paper takes a forward-looking approach to the relationship between consumers and circular economy. It reviews an extensive and systematically collected corpus of European citizen visions on desirable and sustainable futures from this perspective, and argues that the concept of circular economy should increasingly connect to energy issues and social topics, if it is to better embrace citizens' expectations on it.

Circles, spirals, pyramids and cubes: Why the circular economy cannot work

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2018
SUSTAIN SCI

Keith Skene

The concept of a circular economy has become a signiﬁcant school of thought in sustainable economics over the last 10 years. This paper critically analyses the key principles underpinning the concept of the circular economy, speciﬁcally examining the thermodynamic and ecological foundations upon which these principles are apparently rooted. We examine issues related to recycling, biological and technical nutrients, restoration, energy use, elimination of waste, eco-efﬁciency, product lifetime and economic growth under three headings: the pyramid of waste, short cycles and eco-inefﬁciency. We reﬂect on how the economy of nature is based on an open system, not a closed system, that nature operates using short cycles, not extended lifetimes, that nature is sub-optimal, not optimal and that nature is eco-inefﬁcient, not eco-efﬁcient. Findings are then discussed, and we explore what we can learn from the natural world in terms of sustainability.

The Emergence of Circular Economy - A New Framing Around Prolonging Resource Productivity

Article

Full-text available

May 2017
J IND ECOL

In this article, we use Hirsch and Levin’s notion of umbrella concepts as an analytical lens, in order to articulate the valuable catalytic function the circular economy (CE) concept could perform in the waste and resource management debate. We realize this goal by anchoring the CE concept in this broader debate through a narrative approach. This leads to the insight that whereas the various resource strategies grouped under the CE’s banner are not new individually, the concept offers a new framing of these strategies by drawing attention to their capacity of prolonging resource use as well as to the relationship between these strategies. As such, the CE offers a new perspective on waste and resource management and provides a new cognitive unit and discursive space for debate. We conclude by discussing research opportunities for the industrial ecology (IE) community relating to the concept’s theoretical development and its implementation. Specifically, we pose that reinvigorating and growing the social science aspects of IE is required for both. After all, it is in understanding and facilitating the collective implementation of any idea, also the CE concept, that the potential lies for shaping our material future.

Coming Full Circle: Why Social and Institutional Dimensions Matter for the Circular Economy: Why Social and Institutional Dimensions Matter

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2017
J IND ECOL

In light of the environmental consequences of linear production and consumption processes, the circular economy (CE) is gaining momentum as a concept and practice, promoting closed material cycles by focusing on multiple strategies from material recycling to product reuse, as well as rethinking production and consumption chains toward increased resource efficiency. Yet, by considering mainly cost-effective opportunities within the realm of economic competitiveness, it stops short of grappling with the institutional and social predispositions necessary for societal transitions to a CE. The distinction of noncompetitive and not-for-profit activities remains to be addressed, along with other societal questions relating to labor conditions, wealth distribution, and governance systems. In this article, we recall some underlying biophysical aspects to explain the limits to current CE approaches. We examine the CE from a biophysical and social perspective to show that the concept lacks the social and institutional dimensions to address the current material and energy throughput in the economy. We show that reconsidering labor is essential to tackling the large share of dissipated material and energy flows that cannot be recovered economically. Institutional conditions have an essential role to play in setting the rules that differentiate profitable from nonprofitable activities. In this context, the social and solidarity economy, with its focus on equity with respect to labor and governance, provides an instructive and practical example that defies the constraints related to current institutional conditions and economic efficiency. We show how insights from the principles of the social and solidarity economy can contribute to the development of a CE by further defining who bears the costs of economic activities.

Social Entrepreneurship: Why We Don't Need a New Theory and How We Move Forward From Here

Article