Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Circular Economy and Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
FULL PAPER
The ‘3CE2CE’Framework—Change Management
Towards a Circular Economy: Opportunities
for Agribusiness
Nan-Hua Nadja Yang
1,2
&Ana Carolina Bertassini
3
&
Jéssica Alves Justo Mendes
3
&Mateus Cecílio Gerolamo
3
Received: 22 February 2021 /Accepted: 5 May 2021 /Published online: 1 June 2021
#The Author(s) 2021
Abstract
For the transition towards a circular economy (CE), organisations have to be prepared to
adapt to major changes. Thus, the concept and implementation of change management
(CM) will be essential to an organisation’s success during this transformative period.
Studies have shown that organisational CE barriers were more significant than individual
CE barriers. To overcome such obstacles, the most appropriate set of managerial practices
should be carefully considered. These barriers also have the potential to influence the
agricultural sector, which seeks to adopt more sustainable ways of production. The goal
of this paper is to propose a solution framework based on CM strategies to overcome
organisational challenges posed by a CE, especially for agribusinesses. To accomplish
this objectively, a systematic literature review and a content analysis were conducted. The
common errors in CM within the implementation process and the main CE barriers were
identified and classified. An in-depth analysis of the issue’s roots led to a solid under-
standing of how to tackle such CM problems. This paper presents an overview of
organisational CE barriers verified in the agricultural context, the common errors in
CM, and the correlation between these findings. The two areas were then combined in
a matrix that shows the connection between common errors in CM errors and CE barriers.
Based on this result, a solution framework called 3CE2CE was developed that provides a
step-by-step guide on how organisations can successfully undergo transformation pro-
cesses towards a CE with the principles of CM.
Keywords Circular economy .Change management .Organisational behaviour .Barriers .
Agribusiness
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00057-6
*Nan-Hua Nadja Yang
nadja.yang@eng.ox.ac.uk
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Introduction
Economic incentives have been and will be the key drivers for change [1], with the circular
economy (CE) being increasingly debated as one of the promising concepts by scientists,
policymakers, and industries to decouple economic growth from natural resource depletion
and environmental degradation and, by doing so, to reconcile economic interests with the
integrity of the environment [2,3]. The CE is defined as ‘an economic system that is based on
business models which replaces the ‘end-of-life’concept with the aim to accomplish sustain-
able development, [..] creating environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity,
to the benefit of current and future generations’[4]. Organisations have to be prepared for
major transitions and find effective ways to adapt to such changes because the ‘CE must be
understood as a fundamental systemic [innovation] instead of a bit of twisting the status quo’
[1,4]. Therefore, the concept and implementation of change management (CM), which is ‘the
process of continually renewing an organisation’s direction, structure, and capabilities’[5],
will be essential to survive in this transformative period of time. Due to the large scope of the
transformation, the transition towards a CE requires a ‘larger portion of change management
than previous developments’[1]. In this context, rapid changes and continuous improvement
of different aspects of the work are required, which forces changes in people’swayofthinking
and, with that, resistance to those changes might easily emerge [6]. Unlike some other
innovative systems, CE needs to become competitive to an already existing, functioning linear
infrastructure, for which managing the upcoming changes becomes even more important.
For many people, the notion of a CE is that it mainly refers to physical and material
resource aspects of the economy: It focuses on recycling, limiting, and reusing the physical
inputs to the economy as well as using waste as a resource, leading to reduced primary
resource consumption. However, change requires not only technical and economic transfor-
mations but, equally importantly, a change in mindset. So far, studies have mostly dealt with
concept analyses [7], operations management [8], technology [9], CE indicators, business
model innovations [10], and policies [11]; however, little emphasis has been put on the social
and human side of the CE and on organisational change processes [12,13].
Studies have found that organisational barriers are more significant than individual barriers
towards a CE [14]. Such organisational barriers mainly include the resistance to change that
emerges during transformations [15]. To overcome such obstacles, proper CM approaches are
required, and it should be considered carefully what set of managerial practices is most
appropriate [16].
To avoid the failures of the change process, the common errors of CM during the
implementation process and the main organisational CE barriers need to be identified. An
in-depth analysis of the roots of the issue would then lead to a solid understanding of how to
tackle such CM problems. Only with this knowledge can CM errors be overcome and
prevented. As the fields of CE and CM are large, this paper focuses on the barriers/
challenges within both subjects, which partially overlap as shown in Fig. 1. The goal of this
paper is to propose a solution framework based on CM strategies to overcome organisational
challenges posed by a CE, especially for agribusinesses. The guiding research question is the
following: What are the CE barriers and CM errors that need to be overcome during an
organisational change and, once identified, how can they be overcome?
This paper also presents ways in which the findings can be applied to an agricultural
context. The reasons to undertake this approach are twofold: First, it is important to find
sustainable ways of producing food to a growing population [17] and changing agriculture to
698 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
be less exploitative of natural resources [18]. This can be done by investing in CE, as it can
foment sustainability in agriculture by changing the mentality of ‘take-make-dispose’into one
that values the use of all renewable resources in a circular way [18,19]. Second, there is the
need to be more flexible in order to incorporate new mindsets and technologies [19], which can
be supported by applying CM principles. Additionally, according to Schuh et al. [20], farmers
find it difficult to change their habits, which contributes to a resistance to incorporate new
concepts and technologies to their work. Apart from such major problems during a change
process, approaches that deal with ‘soft’aspects are not as much discussed as technological
issues [17]. In this context, the use of CM principles to tackle resistance of change, which can
appear while attempting to implement CE concepts, could be helpful.
The study is structured as follows. The ‘Theoretical Background’section covers the
theoretical background about CE, CM, and the agricultural sector. The ‘Methodology’section
covers the research methodology, including a systematic literature review, snowballing, and
content analysis. The ‘Results and Discussion’section presents and discusses the results,
which spans from the identification, classification, and connection of CE barriers and CM
errors to the theoretical framework 3CE2CE. Eventually, this leads to the conclusion and
future research opportunities in the ‘Conclusions and Future Research’section.
Theoretical Background
Circular economy
CE is considered an umbrella concept [21] based on a fragmented collection of ideas derived
from a variety of disciplines and schools of thought, such as industrial ecology, cradle-to-
cradle, biomimicry, performance economy, natural capitalism, and others [7,22]. CE is
presented as a solution for the unsustainable linear economy since it has the potential to
decouple economic growth from resource consumption [2,23]. Kirchherr et al. [4]affirmthat
as a trend concept, CE has a lot of divergent definitions and does not have a commonly
accepted one. The study from Kirchherr et al. [4] identified 114 definitions of CE from
literature, and based on that, they proposed a more holistic and consolidated definition that
implies the need for a change process:
‘A circular economy describes an economic system that is based on business models which
replace the end-of-life concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering
materials in production/distribution and consumption processes, thus operating at the micro
Fig. 1 Venus diagramme of CM and CE with the focus on barriers/challenges within overlapping realms
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718 699
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
level (products, companies, consumers), meso level (eco-industrial parks) and macro level
(city, region, nation and beyond), 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.’Based on this definition, it is possible to understand the variety
of aspects that are inserted into the change towards the CE. More than just creating new
products/services and optimising value cycles, the CE implementation requires systemic
transformations in organisations and systems as a whole.
Homrich et al. [24] say that ‘CE is a strategy that emerges to oppose the traditional open-
ended system, aiming to face the challenge of resource scarcity and waste disposal in a win-
win approach with economic and value perspective’. The CE requires rebuilding and
restructuring of processes and systems to achieve effectiveness, resource intellect, supporting
infrastructure, societal acceptance, involvement of all actors, and operational as well as
technological modifications to flourish [25]. The transformation towards the CE mandates
firms to change their organisational structure, capabilities, and strategies [26]. Companies that
implement CE concepts usually focus on rethinking products/services, business models, and
systems using guiding principles such as BS8001. According to Bertassini et al. [27],
organisations should prioritise the CE principles in the following order to achieve a circular
system: build resilience through diversified strategies of value optimisation, collaborate and
establish long-term partnerships internally and, externally, innovate to create value and enable
the sustainable management (stewardship) of business models and ecosystems, be transparent
and openly communicate with the stakeholders, and think in systems in order to understand
how individual decisions interact and influence the wider system. These CE principles drive
the strategies and practices that organisations should adopt. The circular strategies presented in
literature aim to optimise the value of products, materials, and components from different
perspectives. The strategies focus on the use of fewer products, components, materials, and
energy during design and production, and during delivery, use, and recovery [28,29]. CE
strategies are about enhancing the level of use and consumption of products, materials, and
components [23,30]. They are implemented and proposed through circular oriented innova-
tions, which widens the innovation perspective to include the ecosystem, next to a product or a
service and the business model [31].
The concept of CE reflects the need for radical changes and innovations in business models
and ecosystems. Innovations in business models for CE contribute to the coordination of
technological and organisational innovations [32] and the implementation require simulta-
neous changes in structures, process, technologies, mindsets, culture, and ecosystems [10,31].
In order to implement circular business models (CBM), organisations should reinvent and
adapt themselves in different aspects. Change towards CE requires new ways of doing
business [33], aiming at the integration of circularity in the business strategy, and a new
way of thinking and creating/capturing value [27]. This can be difficult for many companies as
it requires radical changes [34]. However, radical changes towards CE are hard to achieve [28]
since some managers sometimes interpret CE as a threat due to its complex and innovative
nature [34]. As the implementation of circular oriented innovations requires dramatic changes
for the whole company, including the ecosystem, it brings up a lot of barriers. CE barriers are
impediments or bottlenecks that obstruct transitions towards a CE [35]. These barriers can be
internal or external and can be related to legislations and regulations, culture, economic and
financial, and technological [36–38]. Moreover, they exist in all the ecosystem levels such as
on the market and institutional level, value chain level, organisational level and employee level
700 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
[39–41]. Certain barriers can be overcome using tools and methodology from other research
areas, such as CM, which will be described in the following.
Change management
CM is defined as ‘the process of continually renewing an organisation’s direction, structure,
and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs of external and internal customers’[42].
Bluntly saying, CM is ‘the practice of applying a structured approach to transition an
organisation from a current state to a future state to achieve expected benefits’[43]. Another
definition used to better understand CM comes from Prosci [44], which considers CM as
processes, tools, and techniques that can influence people in the search for a desired business
objective. In general, CM refers to the implementation of finite initiatives in order to bring
about a well-defined shift from the previous way of work [45]. The discipline of CM ‘guides
how to prepare, equip and support individuals successfully to adopt change in order to drive
organisational success and outcomes’[46].
Several CM models have been developed in the last few decades for which in the following,
the most famous or relevant ones are presented.
Lewin’s Three-Stage Model
Kurt Lewin believed that human conditions could only be improved by solving social conflicts
when they were planned ahead [47,48]. Hence, he proposed a three-stage model, commonly
referred to as Unfreeze-Change-(Re) Freeze [49,50].
1. Unfreeze: human behaviour was based on an equilibrium that must be taken out of
balance (Unfreeze) so that old behaviours could be discarded and new behaviours
adopted.
2. Change: In this moving process, the actual change occurs when stakeholders should move
to more suitable and acceptable behavioural patterns.
3. (Re)Freeze: After the change process, the aforementioned equilibrium should be
restabilised while new behaviours should be incorporated into the new organisational
routine.
Schein’s extension of the Lewin’sChangeModel
Schein extended Lewin’s Three-Stage Model by indicating how each stage can successfully
happen. For stage 1, a sense of dissatisfaction within the organisation is necessary, which is
often created by change managers through comprehensive education and communication
efforts. However, a sense of dissatisfaction is not enough. Members of the organisation must
be able to connect to the dissatisfying information and feel anxious or guilty. Only then, there
is a sense of urgency for change. Moreover, change managers need to convey the change as
being positive and beneficial; otherwise, members of the organisation might not feel psycho-
logically safe and hence, resist change efforts [51]. For stage 2,Schein calls the change process
a‘cognitive restructuring’, during which people start to see and respond to things differently.
There needs to be new role models to the change that members of the organisation can relate
to. In particular, leaders themselves must go through a change process. Schein divides stage 3
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718 701
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
in two parts: self and relations with others. For oneself, the change must become entrenched in
one’s behavioural patterns so that the change has to correspond to one’s self-concept. Also, the
resulting attitudes and behaviours must be aligned with the overarching system and the
relationship to others [52].
Jick’sTen-StepModel
In 1992, Kanter, Jick, and Stein developed an extensive model of change based on ten steps
[50]. The ten steps are [52]:
1. Analyse the organisation and its need for change
2. Create a vision and a common direction
3. Separate from the past
4. Create a sense of urgency
5. Support a strong leadership role
6. Line up political sponsorship
7. Craft an implementation plan
8. Develop enabling structures
9. Communicate, involve people and be honest
10. Reinforce and institutionalise change
Later, Kotter developed a more concise and precise model, which has become one of the most
well-known ones and will be presented in greater detail as follows.
Kotter’sEight-StepModel
In 1996, Kotter developed a model, which poses many similarities to the Jick’s Change Model.
He stated that his model would be one of the most holistic approaches to avoid common
organisational pitfalls during a change process [50]. His method is divided into eight steps
[53]:
1. Establish a sense of urgency: Because people prefer to remain in the current state and
often feel uncomfortable about uncertainties, which are commonly associated with chang-
es, change managers must create a sense of urgency within the organisation.
2. Form a powerful guiding coalition: To bring about an effective organisational change, the
managing and leading team must assemble a powerful enough group of people to lead the
change.
3. Create a vision: An effective change can only happen if a clear goal and therefore, a clear
vision is set. Henceforth, specific plans with milestones and strategies can be developed.
4. Communicate the vision: As often stated, communication is key. Thus, every vehicle of
communication has to be activated so that each member of the organisation is aware of the
benefits and specific steps of the change.
5. Empower others to act on the vision: Once the members of the organisation prefer the
change, they must be encouraged and inspired to change. Commonly, different
obstacles—whether internal or external—are along the path and need to be eliminated.
In this step, every member is encouraged to act upon the vision, take risks, and develop
creative ideas to bring about the change.
702 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
6. Plan for and create short-term wins: On the long run, people only work effectively when
they can perceive regular rewards that motivate them to continue. Regular short-term wins
can fulfill this function and are therefore essential.
7. Consolidate improvements and produce more change: After the first change efforts have
taken place, the increased credibility can be used to engender more changes. In this step,
more employees should be hired, promoted, and developed to reinvigorate the change.
8. Institutionalise new approaches: After the bulk of the change process has already passed, it
is essential to incorporate the change into the corporate culture and identity of the
organisation. Concretely, change managers should regularly articulate the linkage between
the change process and the successes of the organisation. Only then, new behaviours will
last.
Kotter’s Change Model is one of the most famous ones. Despite being created many decades
ago, his model is used very often until today. He defined eight corresponding CM errors,
which will be identified and discussed later. After reviewing many more CM models of
modern times, this model was chosen and adapted for this paper as it provided the most
profound and comprehensive foundation for a successful organisational change process. It
proposes a very practical and simple view about the most common errors in implementing
change programmes and how to overcome each one of them. It summarises many of the
findings from other models and, therefore, lays a strong foundation to illustrate how to
overcome CE barriers.
Agricultural sector
The agricultural sector is highly complex due to its multi-layered production chain. Therefore,
it is necessary for agribusiness management professionals to be able to align the strategies
between the agents involved to obtain better results in the face of changes, arising from a
diversity of activities, mindsets, and technologies [54].
The agricultural sector can be defined as the sum of operations for the production,
distribution, and storage of agricultural inputs [54,55]. This set includes all financial services,
transportation, marketing, insurance, and exchange of goods, among others, with operations
acting as links in the chains that have become increasingly complex with the modernisation of
agriculture. On top of that, more services outside the farm have been added, including
suppliers of goods and services for agriculture, rural producers, processors, transformers,
and distributors and all those involved in the generation and flow of products of agricultural
origin until reaching the final consumer [55,56]. In this context, the main sectors of
agribusiness are suppliers of inputs and production goods, agricultural production itself,
processing and transformation, distribution and consumption, support services, and informa-
tion technology [55].
Innovation in the agricultural sector is seen as essential, both in terms of sustainability and
productivity. Regions that manage to achieve high levels of agricultural production are those
that have incorporated new technologies, and thereby, become more efficient and enjoy the
desired economic growth [57]. In this sense, agribusiness is not a prohibitive aspect for the
existence of organisational innovation [58], but rather a sector that has the use of science and
innovative technologies as fundamentals aspects of the sustainable development of its activ-
ities [56].
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718 703
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Zhai et al. [55] highlight agribusiness as an area of the economy that has experienced
radical change through digital transformation, incorporating innovations such as sensors,
drones, robots, machine learning, and the Internet of Things. The change transformation with
new technologies, digitalisation, and new mindsets can serve as a basis for the adoption of
concepts such as the circular economy inagriculture, a sector, which must deal with population
growth and the strain this causes on natural resources [59].
Methodology
To ensure evidence-based, unbiased management of knowledge [60], a systematic literature
review (SLR) has been conducted. A SLR is defined as ‘a form of secondary study that uses a
well-defined methodology to identify, analyse and interpret all available evidence related to a
specific question in a way that is unbiased and repeatable’[61]. The searches were conducted
in the databases Scopus and Web of Science, using the parameters ‘search for title’,‘publi-
cations in English’,and‘only articles and reviews’. The objective of the SLR was to identify
the connection between the barriers towards a CE and the common errors within CM. The
string was created by combining the constructs with Boolean operators: ((‘Circ* Econ*’OR
‘Circ* Model’OR ‘Sustain* Econ*’OR ‘closed loop’OR ‘Green Econ*’OR ‘Industr*
Ecolog*’OR ‘resource eff*’)AND(‘barr*’OR ‘challeng*’OR ‘imped*’OR ‘err*’OR
‘problem*’OR ‘Issue’OR ‘Obstac*’OR ‘Limit*’OR ‘Fail*’OR ‘Mistake’OR ‘Hinder*’
OR ‘Obstruc*’OR ‘Deficienc*’) AND (‘change manag*’OR ‘manag* of change’OR
‘organis* change’OR ‘lean manag*’OR ‘green manag*’OR ‘organis* behaviour’or
‘organis* culture’OR ‘reorganis*’)). The inclusion of the key words ‘agriculture’OR
‘agricultural sector’greatly limited the number of publications, showing that the combined
use of CE and CM in an agricultural context is new and innovative. Due to the main objective
of this article is to identify how CM can influence a successful transition to CE, it was decided
to conduct the search using the constructs that brought a more significant number of publica-
tions. However, given the importance of the agricultural sector to the global economy (and to
sustainability as a whole), it was decided that the opportunities of application of this frame-
work in the agricultural sector should be included, even if not it was not in the SLR. Thus, the
inclusion of agriculture was made in a qualitative way.
The initial search resulted in 175 publications in September 2019 (renewed SLR in
May 2020), which were subsequently imported to the first screening (analysis of the
titles, abstracts, and keywords) based on the following inclusion (I) and exclusion (E)
criteria: (I) represents the relationship between the CE and CM; (I) represents the
relationship between barriers and the CE; (I) represents the relationship between the
errors and CM; (E) incomplete or unavailable material. After the initial screening, 132
papers were excluded from the sample. These papers contained at least one of the search
keywords, but they did not directly address the inclusion criteria defined. Then, the
authors read the introduction and conclusion; the complete paper was subsequently
reviewed with additional snowballing, resulting in a sample of 43 publications. The final
sample was systematically analysed following the principles of content analysis. Accord-
ing to Krippendorff [62], a content analysis makes inferences drawn from texts that are
replicable and valid for a given context being studied. In this article, the focus of the
content analysis is qualitative (analysis of certain analytical categories), following the
three steps proposed by Bardin [63]:
704 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1. Pre-analysis: Selection of documents based on a bibliographic review
2. Exploration of the material: Coding and aggregation of the data
3. Treatment of results: Discussion of the results observed for the research area
Through the content analysis, different types of CE barriers and CM errors were identified and
classified. It also allowed the development of a correlation matrix presented in Table 1,which
led to the development of the 3CE2CE framework as shown in Fig. 2.
Results and Discussion
Barriers Towards a Circular Economy
Change comes along with obstacles, which is also applicable to the transition towards a CE.
The main CE barriers can be categorised in social and cultural, economic, technical, infra-
structural, political, and legal barriers. The latter three categories were not discussed in further
detail because they can hardly be overcome merely through organisational change manage-
ment. Infrastructural barriers comprise a lack of available and accessible technology and
resources, complexity in supply chains, and a lack of recovery leakages. Political barriers
are related to a lack of regulatory pressures and political interests. Legal barriers include a lack
of proper standards, legal frameworks, and measurement indicators. However, most organisa-
tions are small- and medium-sized enterprises (SME) and have little power to influence
infrastructural, political, and legal changes. Applied to the agricultural context, a great number
of farms are classified as SMEs and are thus in a similar situation when it comes to the
influence on politics and legal changes.
Social and cultural, economic, and technical barriers, on the other hand, can be directly
addressed through organisational change management and are presented in greater detail in the
following. The single barriers may be interrelated so that overlaps occur. In order to better
present the nuances of CE when applied to the agricultural sector, this article also presents how
the barriers relate to the use of CE in agriculture.
Social and cultural
a) Lack of environmental awareness Currently, awareness of CE within the public and
among stakeholders is still very slim [64,65]. Hence, the current norm of infinite resource
consumption still dominates in society [1]. This applies to leaders and members of the
organisation as well as to stakeholders such as investors, suppliers, and customers. Despite
the fact that, in general, the public opinion has become more concerned with the environmental
impact of agricultural practices, this rise in environmental concern has not resulted in a parallel
growth of circular product consumption, which can explain a lack of environmental awareness
in the agriculture field as a whole [66].
b) Lack of commitment In general, change only happens when there is a committed group
that leads the transition. Usually, the group becomes a source of drive for the change so that the
organisation’s members are convinced and incentivised to join the transition [67–69], which
can be tricky ina field such as agriculture, where farmers find it difficult to implement changes
to their way of work [20].
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718 705
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
c) Lack of clear vision Even if there is a clear commitment to make the change happen, it cannot
be successful unless the end goal is specified and the underlying vision is clear to all stakeholders
involved in the process [14]. Not only does a lack of clear vision affect the implementation of the
organisational change, but it also negatively impacts the organisation’s image from an outside
perspective. If the organisation is not clear about its values, it will have difficulties in conveying its
vision and mission in a convincing manner to customers and cooperation partners. Vanhamäki
et al. [70] emphasise the need of a clear vision in order to implement a CE in an agricultural
context, showing in a broad way that the success of a CE initiative depends on a clear business
vision in various levels, from the farmers to the stakeholders and government.
d) Lack of communication Many change efforts have failed because the leadership team
neglected to communicate the change adequately to members and stakeholders of the organisation,
leading to misunderstandings, distrust, dissatisfaction, and eventually failure of the process [52].
This holds true to the context of agriculture, where changes that can increase sustainability partially
depend on the success of communication between farmers and stakeholders [71,72].
e) Lack of cooperation Within an organisation, cooperation is needed across all
organisational levels and departments. Apart from cooperation within the CM team, studies
have revealed that participation in a change process raises a sense of commitment within
individual members of an organisation [15]. However, many leaders still do not adhere to this
principle, for which resistance to change as an internal obstacle is likely inevitable. Moreover,
there is a need for cooperation between different organisations and stakeholders [69]. Now-
adays, many industries are fragmented, which severely affects the integrity of the whole CE
concept. Therefore, it is important that different players both within and across industries join
forces for a successful transition. Similarly, in order to reach sustainable production in the
agricultural field, it is necessary to incorporate sustainable practices into agro-industrial
systems, which can be done through cooperatives and cooperation programmes [73]. In the
agricultural scenario, there is an emphasis on the importance that cooperatives have to increase
profits and sustainability in small- and medium-sized farms, which on the surface gives the
impression that the agricultural field is better at cooperation. However, farmers have found the
formalisation of cooperation to be challenging, just as they experienced difficulties in coop-
eration with consumers and institutions [74]. Thus, alike in an industrial context, in agriculture,
the need of different players to work together for a successful transition remains.
f) Lack of demand and consumer resilience There is a lack of demand among consumers
due to the traditional ownership culture, the unwillingness to purchase reused/recycled prod-
ucts, higher costs of circular products, and lack of environmental awareness. This leads to
financial constraints on an organisation which strives to sell CE-compatible products, resulting
in a lack of economic incentives to undergo the change process towards a CE. The same is true
for the agricultural sector, where the circular product consumption has not increased in the
same way that the public opinion on circular products appears to have [66].
Economic
a) Lack of economic incentives Usually, circular products are not as cost-competitive compared
to ‘traditional’products. Thus, most customers do not buy circular products, causing decreased
706 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
economic incentives for organisations to offer such products [1,67]. Adopting circular business
models usually promises more long-term benefits rather than short-term profits. Commonly, the
most efficient changes are driven by high short-term outputs because they are more rewarding and
motivating [14,69]. Similarly, the lack of economic incentives is a main hindrance towards a CE in
the agricultural sector as circular products are yet to be as competitive as traditional ones [75,76].
b) Lack of financial resources Most organisations lack access to financial resources [14,64,
65,77]. The expenses that organisations cannot afford consist of research and innovation, the
acquisition and integration of new technology, the training of staff members, major structural
changes, and the education of stakeholders, which takes up high advertisement and informa-
tion costs. In the agriculture sector, the lack of financial resources is also one of the main
challenges to implement circular principles since both the development and use of sustainable
materials imply high investment and an increase in costs [78].
c) Risk of investments Implementing the CE requires extensive financial support and the
belief in the economic success of the circular business model so that organisations are willing
to invest in spite of high upfront costs [14]. Overall, few stakeholders and shareholders have
embraced the benefits of a CE yet. As the transformation is very large-scale and disruptive, the
outcome of this change is unknown and therefore, too risky in the eyes of many economic
actors. This risk results in an unwillingness to invest in the CE transition [1]. In a similar way,
the high investment cost that can be involved in the implementation of CE concepts is seen as a
risk factor in the agricultural sector [19].
Technical
a) Lack of knowledge and competencies Many leaders and employees do not have the
knowledge of how to implement, manage, and/or operate the new technologies and incorporate
the models into their customary work [65,69]. Moreover, there is a lack of workers training for
sustainable operations such as using an Environmental Management System according to the
ISO 14000 and ISO 14001 [8]. For agribusinesses, many farmers deal with lack of knowledge
and skills, especially in relation tothe use of new technologies, which creates a need to invest in
the training of people to be able to implement and use new (and existing) technologies [17].
b) Difficulties in technology integration Many kinds of technologies already exist such as
the Environmental Management System or Enterprise Resource Planning, but organisations
find it hard to integrate these technologies into their routine work. As for the agricultural
sector, the transferring of information and the use of new technologies are seen as significant
challenges to the full implementation of CE concepts [17,79].
c) Conservative design, production, and recycling Because designing products to be CE-
compatible requires much research and innovation efforts and is usually more costly than
traditional alternatives, many products are not designed eco-friendly, leading to unnecessary waste
and difficulties in separating the product into its components for proper recycling. Since eco-
friendliness has not yet been an important factor, the cheapest and most practical design was
usually chosen. Hence, few organisations choose circular production methods during production
processes, which is also the case in the sectors that deal with bio-based products [80].
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718 707
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Common Change Management Errors
The discipline of CM involves a clear grasp of the big picture, delicate considerations, and a
realistic action plan. There are many claims that most CM processes fail [81], which is also
applicable to the agribusinesses [20,82,83]. In order to reduce the prevalence of these failures,
the most common CM errors are first identified.
Since it is one of the most comprehensive articles about CM errors, Kotter’spaper‘Leading the
Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail’[53] has been used as the main basis of this research and
expanded with contributions of more recent works. This analysis has led to the following common
CM errors in chronological order: #1 Lack of awareness and sense of urgency:Duetoalackof
awareness and education of the CE benefits and opportunities, many organisations do not sense the
urgency for change. #2 Lack of a powerful team to guide the change: Change requires the
commitment of an influential and powerful core team of change makers, which many organisations
lack. #3 Lack of a clear vision: Without a clear vision, changes often dissolve in incompatible and
ineffective projects. #4 Undercommunication of the vision: An organisational transformation is a
group effort of the majority. Organisations that neglect to communicate the vision will most likely
fail. #5 Not removing obstacles to the new vision: Various obstacles might hinder changes for
which these must be identified and eliminated at an early stage. #6 Not systematically planning
for short-term results: Without short-term wins, members of the organisations might quickly stop
believing in the vision. #7 Lack of consolidation of changes: New approaches are subject to
regression for which little changes such as new employees, promotions, and projects need to be
invigorated continuously. #8 Not institutionalising the change into the corporation’sculture:
Unless the change does not deeply sink into the organisation’s culture, the transformation will most
likely be reversed after a few years.
Correlation Matrix—CE Barriers and CM Errors
After the CE barriers and the common CM errors are identified, a possible correlation between
these areas can be measured as shown in Table 1. The last two CM errors were not included
since they are applicable after an organisation has gone through certain changes, which is not
the matter of investigation in this study.
Table 1 Correlation between barriers towards a CE and common CE errors
CE barriers CM errors
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6
Social and cultural Lack of environmental awareness ••
Lack of commitment •
Lack of cooperation ••
Lack of a clear vision and plan ••
Lack of communication •
Lack of demand and consumer resilience ••
Economic Lack of economic incentives ••
Lack of financial resources •
Lack of investments ••
Technical Lack of knowledge and competences •
Difficulties in technology integration •
Difficulties in design, production and recycling •
708 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Going one by one through the different types of CE barriers, the reason for each correlation
is given below. These theoretical correlations were established based on overlaps between CE
barriers and CM errors and conclusions drawn from literature as well as real-world practices.
Social and cultural barriers
Lack of environmental awareness Due to a lack of awareness regarding environmental
destruction, many invest in the current linear economy and do not regard the CE as profitable;
they do not sense the urgency to accelerate the CE transition. Hence, the lack of awareness and
lack of sense of urgency are closely interlinked [40,84].
Lack of commitment In order to form a powerful team towards a CE, commitment is required
[85]. As many stakeholders do not recognise the benefits of a CE or the urgency to transition
yet, it is difficult for them to be committed to achieve a systemic change within and outside an
organisation.
Lack of cooperation At times, organisations, both in the industrial and in the agricultural
sectors, neither cooperate internally nor cooperate externally [84] so that strong guiding teams
cannot be formed. As a powerful team to guide the change is dependent on strong cooperation,
the CE barrier and CM error are connected. Moreover, a lack of cooperation within an
organisation can lead to resistance to change because employees might not be involved in
the transformation process and, therefore, refuse the change. The resistance to change is
considered as an obstacle to be removed and is therefore linked to CM Error 5. If employees
take initiative and work together with the top management, they can be a driving factor [86].
Lack of a clear vision and plan A lack of clear vision can be a barrier towards a CE as well as
a CM error, for which they are interrelated. A clear vision is a requirement for the successful
implementation of change efforts towards a CE [85] and needs to be set at the beginning before
change efforts can happen. However, having a vision is only one side of the coin; the concrete
implementation requires a well-considered action plan, which continuously motivates the
workers. Hence, ‘Lack of a clear vision and plan’wasalsolinkedtoCMError6(Not
systematically planning for short-term results).
Lack of communication There often exists much difficulty (or neglect) in sharing and
communicating the same vision to everyone involved inside as well as outside an organisation.
Especially within an organisation, communication is considered to be the top priority in order
to incentivise employee engagement [85]. Because undercommunication as a CM error and
lacking communication as a CE barrier are overlapping topics, they are connected within the
correlation matrix.
Lack of demand and consumer resilience Consumer behaviour might be exceptionally
difficult to change, which requires increased communication efforts of the new vision [65,
87] as well as the removal of financial and technical obstacles to lower the overall prices of
circular products.
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718 709
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Economic barriers
Lack of economic incentives Many organisations prefer to operate on the business-as-usual
basis because new business models based on CE principles seem to not be lucrative enough
[84]. Only with economic incentives to generate continuous revenue would organisations feel
the sense of urgency to change their current practices. Furthermore, the CE concept often does
not show short-term returns, which are essential to keep the organisation motivated through
little successes and rewards.
Lack of financial resources and Lack of investments The sources of funding for circular
business propositions are still limited and the upfront investment costs are high [88,
89]. These two barriers are both obstacles that need pragmatic, technical, and eco-
nomic approaches to be removed and are therefore related to CM Error 5. However,
the lack of investments is also sometimes related to CM Error 4 (Lack of communi-
cation) because organisations neglect to properly inform investors about the benefits
of the CE, leading to lack of investments.
Technical barriers
Lack of knowledge and competences and Difficulties in technology integration and
Difficulties in design, production, and recycling All the technical barriers are related to
CM Error 5 (Not removing obstacles to the new vision) as they represented obstacles that
can directly be removed with measures such as educational training (lack of knowledge)
[64] since new practices require new skills [65], further technological development for
better adaptations (Difficulties in technology integration), and redesign of processes and
standards (Difficulties in design, production and recycling) [84,88].
The 3CE2CE Framework
Due to the major disruption towards a CE, organisations must reinvent themselves and adopt
realistic and effective step-by-step plans to do so. Based on the matrix of Table 1,the3CE2CE
framework has been developed to overcome common organisational challenges towards a CE
as shown in Fig. 2. The name 3CE2CE is an abbreviationof the first action item letters (in total
three times ‘C’and ‘E’), the similar pronunciation of ‘2’and ‘to(wards)’and CE, which stands
for circular economy. According to the six CM errors, six action steps towards the CE are
needed in the initial implementation phase (remark: the second ‘C’of step 2 has been omitted).
This model was done in a way to have the flexibility of being applied in industrial business and
agribusiness.
The barriers have been listed in the order proposed by Kotter [53]. Each set of CE barriers
might reflect different ‘heights of stairs’, which vary from organisation to organisation. The
chronology of ‘stairs’, however, will be similar. For each ‘stair’the 3CE2CE framework
requires these action steps:
1. Expand the mindset: To establish a sense of urgency, the mindset of organisations has to
be expanded to embrace the ecological and economic need for thetransition towards a CE.
710 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Apart from environmental concerns, organisations should recognise the economic oppor-
tunity that lies behind the concept of CE [90]. As the CE is a way to decouple economic
growth from natural resource depletion and environmental degradation [2,3], the win-win
situation should be embraced and the need for the transition towards a CE internalised. It
is important for organisations to secure their market position and financial performance for
which organisations have to expand their horizon beyond near-term earnings. These
considerations are especially important for the agricultural sector on different stakeholder
levels. Farmers should expand their mindsets as they often resist change to a more
digitised and sustainable system, which makes it difficult to translate new technologies
[17] and models [18,19] into actual value. To expand the mindset of consumers, on the
other hand, well-considered marketing strategies can be helpful to, e.g., increase the
acceptance of food banks (used to distribute discarded food, that are still healthy and
proper for consumption), to later sell it at a discounted price, thus increasing circularity
[91]. In terms of governments, another strategy would be to provide incentives to open
discussions on the advantages of circular practices and disruptive technologies [92], which
should foster the sense of urgency needed to transition to CE within farmers, while at the
same time, increase their sense of security on these new practices and expand their
mindset.
2. Commit and cooperate: Literature has shown that leadership commitment and strong
coalitions for change are key drivers that render change efforts successful [93]. Employees
need guidance from the management board to see their roles within the transformation and
stay confident about the process. With proper managerial practices and support, the
change is more likely to occur as resources are more likely to be allocated for this
purpose. Collaborations with stakeholders, based on shared values and deep trust, are
also crucial [16]. The importance and the use of concepts such as cooperation and
collaboration are not new in agriculture [58,94]. If there is deep trust and a sense of
Fig. 2 The 3CE2CE framework to overcome organisational barriers towards a CE
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718 711
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
commitment towards changing managerial practices into more circular and sustainable
practices, the chances of a successful implementation of circularity in agriculture will
increase. One way to increase cooperation would be to invest in blockchain technology to
improve current information systems because that would increase the speed and transpar-
ency of the shared information to all actors involved in agribusiness [95].
3. Envision: Managers should never neglect the importance of defining a clear vision that
they can easily and concisely communicate and that is attractive to stakeholders. It might
take up some time to develop a clear vision but eventually, time, reasoning, and a bit of
idealism will lead to the ultimate definition of the vision. After the overall vision has been
defined, the detailed strategies and methods in the form of a plan should be specified,
too—but not the other way around [52]. The importance of a clear vision allied with a
detailed and strategic plan to implement CE is also found in the context of agriculture,
with farmers having the job to not only define a clear vision of their business, but also
understand that vision before communicating it to others and committing to their vision
[70,96].
4. Communicate: Undercommunication is one of the key roots of failures during
organisational changes. All stakeholders must be regularly informed to make sure that
they are aware of and eventually share the same values. For members of the organisation,
change leaders must ensure room for participation and innovation. For customers, orga-
nisations must use different channels, e.g. websites, social media sites, interactive initia-
tives, and public participation. For stakeholders such as investors and suppliers,
organisations should remember the best practice of communicating their newly defined
vision honestly and frequently and ending the cooperation if their partner does not share
similar visions in the long run. As stated before, collaboration is a key value in agriculture
[54,55], and a successful collaboration must begin with good and clear communication
[71,72]. Therefore, we recommend that all actors (stakeholders, agroindustries, farmers,
distributors, and consumers) should communicate their specific needs. A good way to do
so would be to invest in the use of information and communication technologies (ICT)
and thereby, facilitate communication between the agribusiness actors.
5. Eliminate obstacles: While obstacles can be manifold, the main types of barriers iden-
tified were technical and economic. These can be overcome by, e.g., introducing educa-
tional training programmes to develop skills and generate knowledge. Furthermore, the
social barrier ‘resistance to change’can be overcome by involving employees/
stakeholders in the change process, communicating with them clearly, and educating
and supporting them. Educational programmes that aid farmers with the more technical
and technological aspects of change [17,54] as well as the involvement of all actors in the
process of change are also effective in agribusiness to overcome challenges (both
technical/technological and economic/social) that affect the acceptance of CE models in
the agricultural sector.
6. Coordinate the change: Generating short-term wins from the change process towards a
CE is indeed possible and will more likely result in continuous incentivisation of
organisations to keep up with the transition. Considering this effect, careful planning
and coordination of the long-term as well as short-term change process must be done.
Generally, the long-term goal might remain the same; however, an emphasis on portion-
wise goals is necessary to maintain the sense of urgency. To coordinate the change in
agribusiness, Sents recommends the use of the ‘Rollercoaster of Change’, a technique that
analyses the expectations of workers (in regard to the changes to be implemented) and
712 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
helps farm leaders to help their employees to accept and implement meaningful changes
[96]. The ‘Rollercoaster of Change’predicts the different stages of emotions during a
change process and helps to guide involved stakeholders through the different
‘rollercoaster’stages smoothly.
The 3CE2CE framework assists organisations at each stage of the initial CM process to
thereby not commit common CM errors and eventually overcome major CE barriers success-
fully. After the initial implementation phase, however, organisations should consolidate the
change and anchor the new values into their corporate culture over many years. The 3CE2CE
framework is designed to be universally applicable across sectors—especially for industrial
corporations and, as highlighted in the previous examples, for agribusinesses in light of the
similar CE barriers and CM errors that agribusinesses face.
Conclusions and Future Research
This paper presents an overview of organisational CE barriers, common CM errors, and the
correlation between both findings. Additionally, insights on how those concepts can be related
to agribusiness are presented. To identify the connection between challenges within the CE
and CM, a systematic literature review, snowballing, and content analysis have been conduct-
ed. Thereby, the social and cultural, economic, technical, infrastructural, political, and legal
barriers towards a CE as well as common CM errors could be identified. Both areas were then
combined in a matrix to illustrate parallels and correlations. Based on these results, a
theoretical framework was developed that provides a step-by-step guide on how organisations
can successfully undergo transformation processes towards a CE with the principles of CM.
The common CM errors can be overcome with the newly developed 3CE2CE framework,
which stands for Expand the mindset, Commit and Collaborate, Envision, Communicate,
Eliminate obstacles, and Coordinate the change. This paper was conducted purely with
theoretical methods, which means the 3CE2CE framework still needs to be empirically
assessed and verified. As such, it makes sense to apply the theoretical results in case studies
and interviews with experts and analyse the outcomes thereafter. First attempts were made by
applying the findings to the agricultural sector, from which many parallels could be drawn.
Overall, more research needs to be done at the intersection of CE and CM, especially in the
field of agriculture. In addition, studying the applicability of the other CM models available in
literature for the implementation of CE is an opportunity for future research. The CE has
mostly been discussed from an economic and technical perspective but the social aspects of the
transition towards a CE have usually been neglected. As there has not been enough academic
research to analyse the organisational change process towards a CE, this topic will most likely
continue to be of growing interest. Thus, research efforts at the intersection between CE and
CM will remain highly relevant.
Availability of Data and Material Not applicable
Code Availability Not applicable
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718 713
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Author Contribution Nan-Hua Nadja Yang initiated the paper, developed the framework, and conducted the
main research. Ana Caroline Bertassini served as the CE expert and Jéssica Alves Justo Mendes contributed
mainly with her agribusiness expertise. Mateus Cecílio Gerolamo contributed with his CM expertise as the leader
of the CM research at EESC-USP.
Funding Nan-Hua Nadja Yang was funded by the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD - RISE
Worldwide). Ana Carolina Bertassini was funded by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São
Paulo (Award No. 2018/24830-6).
Declarations
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and
indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's
Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included
in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy
of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
1. Larsson M (2018) Circular business models: developing a sustainable future. Springer, Cham
2. Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken NMP, Hultink EJ (2017) The circular economy –a new sustainability
paradigm? J Clean Prod 143:757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
3. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.09.007
4. Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114
definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
5. Moran JW, Brightman BK (2001) Leading organizational change. CareerDev Int6(2):111–118. https://doi.
org/10.1108/13620430110383438
6. Schaffer RH (2017) All management is change management. Harv Bus Rev
7. Korhonen J, Nuur C, Feldmann A, Birkie SE (2018) Circular economy as an essentially contestedconcept. J
Clean Prod 175:544–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111
8. Koh SL, Gunasekaran A, Morris J, Obayi R, Ebrahimi SM (2017) Conceptualizing a circular framework of
supply chain resource sustainability. Int J Oper Prod Manag 37:1520–1540. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-
02-2016-0078
9. Sarkis J, Zhu H (2008) Information technology and systems in China’s circular economy. J Syst InfTechnol
10:202–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/13287260810916916
10. Pieroni MPP, McAloone TC, Pigosso DCA (2019) Business model innovation for circular economy and
sustainability: a review of approaches. J Clean Prod 215:198–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.
036
11. McDowall W, Geng Y, Huang B, Barteková E, Bleischwitz R, Türkeli S, Kemp R, Doménech T (2017)
Circular economy policies in China and Europe: circular economy policies in China and Europe. J Ind Ecol
21(3):651–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12597
12. Chiappetta Jabbour CJ, Sarkis J, Lopes de Sousa Jabbour AB, Scott Renwick DW, Singh SK, Grebinevych
O, Kruglianskas I, Filho MG (2019) Who is in charge? A review and a research agenda on the ‘human side’
of the circular economy. J Clean Prod 222:793–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.038
13. Muranko Z, Andrews D, Newton EJ, Chaer I, Proudman P (2018) The Pro-Circular Change Model (P-
CCM): proposing a framework facilitating behavioural change towards a Circular Economy. Resour
Conserv Recycl 135:132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.12.017
714 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
14. Lozano R, Fobbe L, Carpenter A, Sammalisto K (2019) Analysing sustainability changes in seaports:
experiences from the Gävle Port Authority. Sustain Dev 27(3):409–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1913
15. Kotter JP, Schlesinger LA (2008) Choosing change strategies. Harv Bus Rev 86(7):130–139
16. Ünal E, Urbinati A, Chiaroni D (2019) Managerial practices for designing circular economy business
models: the case of an Italian SME in the office supply industry. Managerial practices for designing circular
economy business models The case of an Italian SME in the office supply industry 30:561–589. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JMTM-02-2018-0061
17. Mahroof K, Omar A, Rana N, Sivarajah U, Weerakkody V (2020) Drone as a Service (DaaS) in promoting
cleaner agricultural production and circular economy for ethical sustainable supply chain development. J
Clean Prod 287:125522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125522
18. Fortunati S, Morea D, Mosconi EM (2020) Circular economy and corporate social responsibility in the
agricultural system: cases study of the Italian agri-food industry. Agricultural Economics –Czech 66(11):
489–498. https://doi.org/10.17221/343/2020-AGRICECON
19. Donner M, Verniquet A, Broeze J, Kayser K, De Vries H (2021) Critical success and risk factors for circular
business models valorising agricultural waste and by-products. In: Resources, Conservation & Recycling.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105236
20. Schuh, G., Anderl, R., Gausemeier, J., ten Hompel, M., & Wahlster, W. (2017). Industrie 4.0 maturity
index. Managing the digital transformation of companies. acatech study Utz, Munich
21. Blomsma F, Brennan G (2017) The emergence of circular economy: a new framing around prolonging
resource productivity. J Ind Ecol 21(3):603–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12603
22. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012) Towards the circular economy: economic and business rationale for an
accelerated transition. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Ellen-
MacArthur-Foundation-Towards-the-Circular-Economy-vol.1.pdf. Accessed: 10 Dec 2019
23. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2014) Towards the circular economy: accelerating the scale-up across global
supply chains. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ENV_TowardsCircularEconomy_Report_2014.pdf.
Accessed 10 Dec 2019
24. Homrich AS,Galvao G, AbadiaLG, Carvalho MM (2018) The circular economy umbrella: trends and gaps
on integrating pathways. J Clean Prod 175:525–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.064
25. Sarja M, Onkila T, Mäkelä M (2020) A systematic literature review of the transition to the circular economy
in business organizations: obstacles, catalysts and ambivalences. J Clean Prod 125492:125492. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125492
26. Chizaryfard A, Trucco P, Nuur C (2020) The transformation to a circular economy: framing an evolutionary
view. J Evol Econ:1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-020-00709-0
27. Bertassini AC, Zanon LG, Azarias JG, Gerolamo MC, Ometto AR (2020) Circular business ecosystem
innovation: a guide for mapping stakeholders, capturing values, and finding new opportunities. Sustainable
Production and Consumption 27:436–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.004
28. Bocken NM, De Pauw I, Bakker C, Van Der Grinten B (2016) Product design and business model strategies
for a circular economy. J Ind Prod Eng 33(5):308–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124
29. Konietzko J, Bocken N, Hultink EJ (2020) A tool to analyze, ideate and develop circular innovation
ecosystems. Sustainability 12(1):417. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010417
30. Guzzo D, Trevisan AH, Echeveste M, Costa JMH (2019) Circular innovation framework: verifying
conceptual to practical decisions in sustainability-oriented product-service system cases. Sustainability
11(12):3248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123248
31. Konietzko J, Bocken N, Hultink EJ (2019) Online platforms and the circular economy. In: Innovation for
Sustainability. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 435–450
32. Nußholz JL (2018) A circular business model mapping tool for creating value from prolonged product
lifetime and closed material loops. J Clean Prod 197:185–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.112
33. Lieder M, Rashid A (2016) Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive review in context
of manufacturing industry. J Clean Prod 115:36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042
34. Eikelenboom M, de Jong G (2021) The impact of managers and network interactions on the integration of
circularity in business strategy. Organ Environ 1086026621994635:108602662199463. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1086026621994635
35. De Jesus A, Mendonça S (2018) Lost in transition? Drivers and barriers in the eco-innovation road to the
circular economy. Ecol Econ 145:75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.001
36. Govindan K, Hasanagic M (2018) A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular
economy: a supply chain perspective. Int J Prod Res 56(1-2):278–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.
2017.1402141
37. Guldmann E, Huulgaard RD (2020) Barriers to circular business model innovation: a multiple-case study. J
Clean Prod 243:118160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118160
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718 715
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
38. Vermunt DA, Negro SO, Verweij PA, Kuppens DV, Hekkert MP (2019) Exploring barriers to
implementing different circular business models. J Clean Prod 222:891–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.03.052
39. Agyemang M, Kusi-Sarpong S, Khan SA, Mani V, Rehman ST, Kusi-Sarpong H (2019) Drivers and
barriers to circular economy implementation. Manag Decis 57:971–994. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-
2018-1178
40. Masi D, Kumar V, Garza-Reyes JA, Godsell J (2018) Towards a more circular economy: exploring the
awareness, practices, and barriers from a focal firm perspective. Prod Plan Control 29(6):539–550. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1449246
41. Rizos V, Behrens A, Van der Gaast W, Hofman E, Ioannou A, Kafyeke T et al (2016) Implementation of
circular economy business models by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): Barriers and enablers.
Sustainability 8(11):1212. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111212
42. By RT (2005) Organisational change management: a critical review. J Chang Manag 5(4):369–380. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14697010500359250
43. Association of Change Management Professionals (2019) Standard for Change Management and ACMP
Change Management Code of Ethics https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.acmpglobal.org/resource/resmgr/files/
ACMP_Standard_2019_03_21.pdf.
44. Prosci. (2018) The seven concepts of change. Fort Collins: Prosci: people, change, results. Thought
Leadership Article. https://www.prosci.com/hubfs/367443/2.downloads/thought-leadership/7-Concepts-of-
Change-TL.pdf?hsLang=en-ca. Accessed 15 Jan 2021
45. Ashkenas R (2015) There’s a difference between cooperation and collaboration. Harv Bus Rev 20
46. Prom-Jackson S, Cronin EA (2019) Review of change management in United Nations system organizations
- Report of the Joint Inspection Unit https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3833645/files/JIU_REP_2019_4-
EN.pdf.
47. Sarayreh BH, Khudair H, Barakat EA (2013) Comparative study: the Kurt Lewin of change management.
Int J Comput Inf Technol 2(4):626–629
48. Burnes B (2004) Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: back to the future? J Chang Manag 4(4):309–325.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1469701042000303811
49. Lewin K (1947) Group Decision and Social Change. In: Newcomb T, Hartley E (eds) Readings in Social
Psychology. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, pp 197–211
50. Al-Haddad S, Kotnour T (2015) Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful
change. J Organ Chang Manag 28:234–262. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215
51. Schein EH (1992) How can organizations learn faster?: the problem of entering the Green Room
52. Pryor MG, Taneja S, Humphreys J, Anderson D, Singleton L (2008) Challenges facing change management
theories and research. Delhi Business Review 9(1):1–20
53. Kotter J (1995) Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harv Bus Rev 73(2)
54. Araújo MJ (2000) Fundamentos de agronegócios. Editora Atlas SA
55. Mendes JTG, Júnior JBP (2007) Agronegócio: uma abordagem econômica. Pearson Prentice Hall
56. Adenle AA, Manning L, Azadi H (2017) Agribusiness innovation: a pathway to sustainable economic
growth in Africa. Trends Food Sci Technol 59:88–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.11.008
57. Brum AL, Müller PK (2008) Aspectos do Agronegócio no Brasil. Ed. Unijuí, Ijuí 224 p
58. Mas-Verdu F, Ortiz-Miranda D, García-Álvarez-Coque JM (2016) Examining organizational innovations in
different regional settings. J Bus Res 69(11):5324–5329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.132
59. Shepherd M, Turner JA, Small B, Wheeler D (2020) Priorities for science to overcome hurdles thwarting the
full promise of the digital agriculture revolution. J Sci Food Agric 100(14):5083–5092. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jsfa.9346
60. Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed
management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1467-8551.00375
61. Kitchenham B (2004) Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele University Technical Report, 33
62. Krippendorff K (2004) Reliability in content analysis: some common misconceptions and recommenda-
tions. Hum Commun Res 30(3):411–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x
63. Bardin L (2011) Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70. Brasil.(2014a). Manual de enfrentamento à
violência contra a pessoa idosa. Brasília: Secretaria de Direitos Humanos da Presidência da República.
64. Geng Y, Sarkis J, Ulgiati S (2016) Sustainability, well-being, and the circular economy in China and
worldwide. Science 6278(Supplement):73–76
65. Urbinati A, Chiaroni D, Chiesa V (2017) Towards a new taxonomy of circular economy business models. J
Clean Prod 168:487–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.047
716 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
66. Testa F, Pretner G, Iovino R, Bianchi G, Tessitore S, Iraldo F (2020) Drivers to green consumption: a
systematic review. In: Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-
00844-5
67. Orji IJ (2019) Examining barriers to organizational change for sustainability and drivers of sustainable
performance in the metal manufacturing industry. Resour Conserv Recycl 140:102–114. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.resconrec.2018.08.005
68. Su B, HeshmatiA, Geng Y, Yu X (2013) A review of the circular economy in China: moving fromrhetoric
to implementation. J Clean Prod 42:215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.020
69. Zhang A, Venkatesh VG, Liu Y, Wan M, Qu T, Huisingh D (2019) Barriers to smart waste management for
a circular economy in China. J Clean Prod 240:118198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118198
70. Vanhamäki S, Virtanen M, Luste S, Manskinen K (2020) Transition towards a circular economy at a
regional level: a casestudy on closing biological loops. Resour Conserv Recycl 156:104716. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104716
71. Gava O, Bartolini F, Venturi F, Brunori G, Pardossi A (2020) Improving policy evidence base for
agricultural sustainability and food security: a content analysis of life cycle assessment research.
Sustainability 12(3):1033. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031033
72. Zucchella A, Previtali P (2019) Circular business models for sustainable development: a “waste is food”
restorative ecosystem. Bus Strateg Environ 28(2):274–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2216
73. Toop TA, Ward S, Oldfield T,Hull M, Kirby ME,Theodorou MK (2017) AgroCycle–developing a circular
economy in agriculture. Energy Procedia 123:76–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.269
74. Lutz J, Smetschka B, Grima N (2017) Farmer cooperation as a means for creating local food systems—
potentials and challenges. Sustainability 9(6):925. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9060925
75. Domenech T, Bahn-Walkowiak B (2019) Transition towards a resource efficient circular economy in
Europe: policy lessons from the EU and the member states. Ecol Econ 155:7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2017.11.001
76. Barros MV, Salvador R, de Francisco AC, Piekarski CM (2020) Mapping of research lines on circular
economy practices in agriculture: from waste to energy. Renew Sust Energ Rev 131:109958. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2020.109958
77. Wübbeke J, Heroth T (2014) Challenges and political solutions for steel recycling in China. Resour Conserv
Recycl 87:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.03.004
78. Aznar-Sánchez JA, Velasco-Muñoz JF, García-Arca D, López-Felices B (2020) Identification of opportu-
nities for applying the circular economy to intensive agriculture in Almería (South-East Spain). Agronomy
10(10):1499. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10101499
79. Batany R, Batt PJ (2019) Implementing sustainable business practices within the food industry. In: 35th
IMP-conference in Paris, France
80. Stegmann P, Londo M, Junginger M (2020) The circular bioeconomy: its elements and role in European
bioeconomy clusters. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X 6:100029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcrx.
2019.100029
81. Balogun J (2003) From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: Creating change intermediaries. Br J
Manag 14(1):69–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00266
82. Toma L, Barnes AP, Sutherland L-A, Mathews K, Stott A (2014) Determinants of farmers’uptake of animal
health and welfare technologies under the common agricultural policy. In: European Association of
Agricultural Economists (EAAE), International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.183049
83. Toma L, Barnes AP, Sutherland L-A, Thomson S, Burnett F, Mathews K (2018) Impact of information
transfer on farmers’uptake of innovative crop technologies: a structural equation model applied to survey
data. J Technol Transfer 43:864–881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9520-5
84. Kirchherr J, Piscicelli L, Bour R, Kostense-Smit E, Muller J, Huibrechtse-Truijens A, Hekkert M (2018)
Barriers to the circular economy: evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecol Econ 150:264–272. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.028
85. Veleva V, Bodkin G, Todorova S (2017) The need for better measurement and employee engagement to
advance a circular economy: lessons from Biogen’s“zero waste”journey. J Clean Prod 154:517–529.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.177
86. Moktadir MA, Rahman T, Rahman MH, Ali SM, Paul SK (2018) Drivers to sustainable manufacturing
practices and circular economy: a perspective of leather industries in Bangladesh. J Clean Prod 174:1366–
1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.063
87. Muranko Z, Andrews D, Chaer I, Newton EJ (2019) Circular economy and behaviour change: using
persuasive communication to encourage pro-circular behaviours towards the purchase of remanufactured
refrigeration equipment. J Clean Prod 222:499–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.219
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718 717
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
88. Mont, O., Plepys, A., Whalen, K., & Nußholz, J. L. (2017). Business model innovation for a circular
economy: drivers and barriers for the Swedish industry–the voice of REES companies.
89. Pheifer AG (2017) Barriers and enablers to circular business models. White Paper, Brielle
90. Lacy P, Rutqvist J (2016) Waste to wealth: the circular economy advantage. Springer. https://doi.org/10.
1057/9781137530707
91. Noterdaeme L (2020) How to embed the sustainable development goals in the strategy of a company?
Review of circular business models and assessment of their sustainability and how SDGs and CBMs enable
to create business value and competitive advantage? The case of the Agricultural Sector.. Louvain School of
Management, Université catholique de Louvain, 2020. Prom. : Desmet, Carlos. http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/
thesis:24617
92. European Commission (2020) Resilience and transformation Report of the 5th SCAR Foresight Exercise
Expert Group Natural resources and food systems: transitions towards a ‘safe and just’operating space.
Publications Office of the European Union in Luxembourg. http://real.mtak.hu/119424/1/Brunori_Baldi_
etal_tanulmkotet.pdf. Accessed: 01 Apr 2021
93. Kirsch C, Connell J (2018) Organizational Sustainability—Why the Need for Green HRM? In: Global
Value Chains, Flexibility and Sustainability. Springer, Singapore, pp 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
981-10-8929-9_15
94. Zhai ZY, Martinez JF, Beltran V, Martinez NL (2020) Decision support systems for agriculture 4.0: survey
and challenges. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 170:105256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.
2020.105256
95. Silva, Duarte Miguel Mello Loureiro Santos da (2018) Blockchain as a Service for the Bioeconomy Agri-
Sector an Exploratory Study of Blockchain Technology in the European Bioeconomy. In: Faculdade de
Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa. https://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/65515/1/Silva_
2018.pdf. Accessed: 01 Apr 2021
96. Sents N (2017) Leading through change. https://www.agriculture.com/farm-management/leading-through-
change. Accessed: 01 Apr 2021
Affiliations
Nan-Hua Nadja Yang
1,2
&Ana Carolina Bertassini
3
&Jéssica Alves Justo Mendes
3
&
Mateus Cecílio Gerolamo
3
1
Department of Chemistry, Technical University of Munich, Lichtenbergstraße 4, 85748 Garching, Germany
2
Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PJ, UK
3
Department of Production Engineering, University of São Paulo, Av. Trabalhador são-carlense, 400, 13566-
590, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil
718 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2021) 1:697–718
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
