Content uploaded by Marco Aurisicchio
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marco Aurisicchio on Feb 16, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Marco Aurisicchio
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marco Aurisicchio on Feb 16, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
***Pre-print***
Modelling an Ecosystem of Business Models in a Circular Value
Chain: the Circular Business Ecosystem Model Canvas
Avyay Jamadagni1, Marco Aurisicchio1, Lars Nybom2
Imperial College London (1), Ragn-Sells Group (2)
Abstract
To advance the circular economy, there is a need to take an ecosystem view of business models for
circularity in which different actors interact dynamically to create economic, environmental and
social value. This research introduces the Circular Business Ecosystem Model Canvas, a novel
method to prototype a circular ecosystem of business models. The case of ferric chloride, an
inorganic coagulant for wastewater treatment, is used to demonstrate the new canvas and show how
it supports the development of a more holistic perspective on sustainability-oriented business model
innovation.
Sustainability; Circular Economy; Business Model Innovation
1. Introduction
1.1. Business model innovation: the shift from linear to circular economies
For a long time, business has operated in a linear economy, whereby raw materials are transformed into
products that are used until their functional value diminishes, after which they are disposed of (Sharma
et al., 2020). This has led to an increasing number of sustainability challenges with planetary boundaries
like climate change, biodiversity loss and nitrogen and phosphorus loading having already been crossed
(Rockström et al., 2009). The severity of these environmental challenges has led to its entanglement
with social issues, such as the impact of natural disasters on the job market and deterioration of local
economies. Business is under pressure to respond. As a result, initiatives towards sustainability and
more efficient use of resources are increasing. Sustainability challenges are a risk for business but also
an opportunity. The circular economy (CE), defined as “a regenerative system in which resource input
and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimised by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and
energy loops” (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017), provides a route for business to see these challenges as an
opportunity. The CE provides strategies for more efficient resource management and stimulates progress
towards the development of more robust and durable materials (Ghisellini et al., 2016). New circular
business models are a driver for CE transitions (Gue et al., 2022). However, circular business models
are not widespread as they require changing the key building blocks of business and current business
paradigms (Bocken et al., 2019).
1.2. Research gaps, aims and contributions
To support business model design and innovation, there is a need to provide structure and guidance to
frame and focus thought (Bocken et al., 2019). A broad variety of methods has been developed to
support business model innovation (Bocken et al., 2019). However, they tend to focus on modelling the
business model of a single organisation when this is not sufficient to close material loops. Focusing on
a single organisation is unlikely to make the CE work in practice (Takacs et al., 2020) as it does not
allow to consider the high level of coordination between actors necessary to transition to a CE (Kanda
et al., 2021). To advance and upscale the CE, there is a need to take an ecosystem view of business
models for circularity in which different actors, networks and institutions interact dynamically to create
environmental and socio-economic value (Takacs et al., 2020; Hansen et al., 2020; Zucchella and
Previtali, 2018). Despite seminal work to conceptualise the ecosystem construct (Adner, 2016) and early
attempts to support practitioners to think in business systems (Mentink, 2014), we still do not know how
to model an ecosystem of business models and their interlinked resource flows. Further, early attempts
to support business systems thinking fail to encourage organisations to design their business models
with a strong focus on environmental and social impacts. The aim of this research is to develop a novel
method to model a circular ecosystem from a business perspective to support economic, social and
environmental value creation. This is important to move away from the view that a single organisation
can be sustainable on its own and support the development of business models for networks of different
organisations (Jakobsen et al., 2023). It is also key to help operationalise the CE and support business
developers. This paper introduces the Circular Business Ecosystem Model Canvas (CBEMC) and
validates its effectiveness by modelling an ecosystem of business models using a dataset from an
industrial project. The paper contributes a new canvas showing how the actors in a closed-loop value
chain can make business.
2. Literature review
2.1. 21st century economies and business
The CE is a manifestation of economic models that highlight business opportunities where cycles rather
than linear processes dominate. However, the concept has limitations as, for example, it neglects social
implications. There is neither a clear focus on society nor a suggestion on the strategies and impactful
actions within the CE that could lead to future social equality (Murray et al., 2017; Padilla-Rivera et al.,
2020). Furthermore, the CE fails to address UN Sustainable Development goals 3, 5, 10, 11, and 16,
which all fall under the social pillar (Schroeder et al., 2019). Padilla-Rivera’s review of the CE
demonstrates the requirement of a framework that integrates economic, social, and ecological aspects
(Everett, 2022).
The Doughnut economy points to the need to include multiple social and environmental concerns within
economic development strategies (Raworth, 2017). It embodies an ecological ceiling and social
foundation that act as boundaries between which business can safely occur without harming either. The
ecological ceiling and social foundations consist of planetary and social boundaries which must not be
pushed beyond their threshold, otherwise they will have detrimental effects on the planet and society.
2.2. Business modelling in a sustainable and circular economy
2.2.1. Sustainability-led evolutions of the traditional business model canvas
Created in 2010 by Osterwalder and Pigneur (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010), the traditional Business
model canvas is a tool to map out a business model focusing on value proposition, creation, delivery
and capture. It contains all the essential components to describe a business model prompting business
to think about other actors they need to interact with and mapping internally used resources. It focuses
on defining the business model of a single organisation within a linear economy logic and lacks
consideration of sustainability issues.
The Triple layered business model canvas is a tool to integrate economic, environmental and social
concerns into a holistic view of an organisation’s business model (Joyce et al., 2016). It iterates upon
the original business model canvas (economic) by adding two more canvases (environmental life cycle
and social stakeholders), which focus on mapping environmental and social business considerations.
The two new canvases allow to transcend a value capture logic centred on financial transactions only
by capturing environmental and social benefits and costs. Further, the triple layered business model
canvas prompts business to think in detail about the sourcing, production, use phase and end of life of
products. However, it is still focussed on modelling the business of a single organisation and cannot
map financial, resource and information flows within the system.
The Template to develop circular business models is a valuable step forward as it proposes to extend
the traditional business model canvas by calling for horizontal and cross integration of actors’ business
models and offering five recovery modules (Braun et al., 2021). In particular, the sections to map out
reverse logistics are linked to the main canvas using graphics to emphasise that business models must
be created such that they can integrate with each other and help business understand the ‘tightness’ of
resource loops. In the template there is no explicit field referring to environmental and social benefits
and costs. Further, it lacks clarity on how actors’ business models link with each other.
Other adaptations of the traditional business model canvas claim to address sustainability and circularity
but they provide limited advancement, such as the Ecocanvas (Daou et al., 2020).
2.2.2. Circular business innovation canvases
There are also canvases that focus on bringing actors together to stimulate business model innovation.
The Boundary tool is a canvas to help multiple actors engage with each other to innovate sustainable
business models (Velter et al., 2022). It focuses on achieving alignment between actors by sharing
potential contributions towards a circular system, understanding each other’s interests and
collaboratively coming up with a shared goal.
The Circular collaboration canvas is a tool to trigger questions that encourage discussion on the current
challenges faced by the organisation coordinating the circular effort (Brown et al., 2021). It allows for
ideation upon what challenges could be faced by other actors in the system and how they could be
addressed to facilitate collaboration. Traditional business model canvases lack the element of
collaboration that these canvases provide.
2.2.3. Industrial symbiosis business modelling canvases
In the field of industrial symbiosis, Gravert and Mattsson modelled the cooperation between a recycling
company, an energy company and a real estate company using three instantiations of the traditional
business model canvas (Gravert et al., 2016). However, they lack a specific tool to visualise the
interactions between the three business models.
The Industrial Symbiosis business model canvas demonstrates the system-level value produced by
industrial symbiosis (Cervo et al., 2019). The canvas is centred on the business model of a consortium
including central, peripheral and external organisations. Key resources and activities summarise
technical and organisational relevant aspects of the synergy. Partners relationships detail the nature of
consortium members relations in the synergy (e.g. competition, cooperation, coopetition). The value
proposition is split into economic, environmental, social and territorial. While economic value is
captured in the traditional way through cost structure and revenue stream fields, environmental value is
documented through four footprint balance fields and social cost through two private (non-)financial
mechanism fields. In this canvas, tracing the contribution of the individual members of the consortium
to the industrial symbiosis may be challenging. There is also a lack of a clear example to demonstrate
efficacy of the value capture fields in the canvas. Finally, information, material and finance flows are
not represented though they are essential to understand a circular system.
2.2.4. Business systems modelling canvases
The Business cycle canvas is a method to support practitioners to think in business systems and beyond
the individual business model (Mentink, 2014). It allows mapping and linking in a circle (through flows
of resources and finances) fields of the traditional business model canvas like key activities and key
partners. It provides business with an instrument to visualise the resource and financial flows together
facilitating the creation of a circular flow. It is still based on the traditional business model canvas and
therefore it lacks fields like environmental and social benefits and costs.
The Circular business model mapping tool by Julia L.K. Nußholz (Nußholz, 2018) consists of a
horizontal set of business model canvases that represent the chain of actors in the system. This form of
integration of multiple canvases is more in-depth as it covers all the fields of the traditional business
model canvas. However, resource and financial flows are not shown and neither are the environmental
and social benefits and costs fields.
2.2.5. Summary of challenges with current canvases
Overall, the literature review shows that among current efforts to evolve the traditional business model
canvas there are four streams. The first has focused on implementing either the triple bottom line (i.e.
Tripled layered business model canvas) or circularity (i.e. Template for circular business models). The
second has concentrated on facilitating multi-actor alignment for sustainable business model innovation
(i.e. Boundary tool). The third has tried to combine concepts of cross-sector collaboration via industrial
symbiosis with the traditional business model canvas (i.e. Industrial Symbiosis business model canvas).
Finally, still departing from the traditional business model canvas, the fourth stream has focussed on
modelling business systems (i.e. Business cycle canvas and Circular business model mapping tool).
Despite their positive contributions, the canvases in this stream do not yet incorporate the triple bottom
line, lack a comprehensive overview of flows in a closed-loop value chain and do not show what drives
integration of inter-system business models within a value chain.
3. Methodology
3.1. Development of the Circular Business Ecosystem Model Canvas
The CBEMC stems from the analysis of new economic models, existing business model canvases,
empirical understanding of businesses interested in operating into closed-loop value chains and the
interest of the authors to develop a practical tool to support the development of business models for
circular ecosystems. The development of the CBEMC underwent multiple iterations based on learnings
from the literature, the data collected through the case study and the feedback from academic and
industrial experts.
Building on the Circular business model mapping tool (Nußholz, 2018), the CBEMC integrates the
business models of different actors to develop a joint value proposition for a circular ecosystem. The
CBEMC is composed of a modelling template and business model cards both of which have fields to be
filled in by actors, see Figure 1. At the centre of the modelling template is stated the system value
proposition intended as the view of the network and derived from the Boundary tool (Velter et al.,
2022). In its proximity there is a field to state the system drivers. The modelling template depicts cyclic
flows of resources, information and finance as in the Business Cycle Canvas (Mentink, 2014) within the
ecological ceiling and social foundation boundaries inspired from the Doughnut economy framework
(Raworth, 2017). To configure an ecosystem of business models, business model cards, representing the
business models of different actors, can be placed over the template in the forward or reverse logistics
sections, which are in between the ecological ceiling and social foundation boundaries. This ensures
that all business is conducted between the constraints of the environment and society. The business
model card, apart from representing the business model of an organisation, has been designed to
interlock with another business model card in order to represent the business interactions between
consecutive organisations in a value chain and show how they exchange resources, information and
finance.
The business model card, retaining the four types of value in the traditional Business model canvas
(Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010), splits value proposition (diagonal line pattern fields) into economic
value proposition, environmental value proposition and social value proposition as in the Triple
layered business model canvas (Joyce et al., 2016), see Figure 1. The business pattern is a means of
classifying the business model of an actor within a circular economy. With regards to value creation
(dotted pattern fields), the card displays the business activities of an organisation and presents its
internally used resources. Partners at the core of value creation are shown as interlinked organisations,
but extended partners in the broader ecosystem are also captured per each organisation. With respect
to value delivery (grid patterned fields), information captures the exchange of data between actors on
either side of the card, and the core resource describes how materials and components are transformed
and which actors own them in that position within the loop. Lastly, customer relationships detail the
strategies to engage with customers to understand their needs. Finally, the card maps value capture
(chequer pattern fields) as in the Triple layered business model canvas (Joyce et al., 2016) that is by
identifying economic value capture through revenue, costs and profit and surplus stream,
environmental value capture through environmental benefits and environmental costs and social
value capture through social benefits and social costs.
The CBEMC aims to support modelling and visualisation of: 1) an ecosystem (integrated network) of
business models in harmony with the principles of the ecosystem and humanistic value and norms
(Jakobsen et al., 2023); 2) the value propositions of businesses networked in a closed-loop and the
interactions between them towards value creation, value delivery and economic value capture; and 3)
the actions of businesses towards environmental and social value capture. This modelling is expected to
support: business collaboration to create social and environmental value between actors with diverse
background and values (Dentoni et al., 2021); cooperation for common good and to reduce tendencies
to economic egoism (Jakobsen et al., 2023); coordination of actions by actors for proper ecosystem
development and functioning (Barrie et al., 2020); and management of the relationships underpinning
the ecosystem.
Circular Business Ecosystem Model Canvas
3.2. Case study
The CBEMC was investigated and developed as part of the ‘Water treatment plants as resource hubs’
project. One of the work packages of the project aims to develop a Chemical as a Service (CaaS)
business model for the actors operating in the value chain of ferric chloride, an inorganic coagulant used
in wastewater treatment plants to remove impurities from water. This business model replaces
conventional ownership exchange of ferric chloride for wastewater treatment with access. In the CaaS
business model, it is, in fact, expected that the sludge collected post wastewater treatment is processed
to recover ferric chloride and the chemical is subsequently leased first to a manufacturer of chemicals
and then subleased to wastewater treatment companies.
The actors in the value chain of ferric chloride, including manufacturers of high performance water
treatment chemicals (Feralco), wastewater treatment companies (Käppala, Sydvatten, Stockholm Vatten
och Avfall), energy and material recovery companies (EasyMining) and the water association (Svenskt
Vatten), were met in January 2023 as part of a workshop to facilitate alignment around the CaaS business
model and subsequently interviewed between July and September 2023 to learn more about their views
on the proposed business model.
In total, six semi-structured interviews with audio recording were conducted with actors from the above
organisations. The interviewees covered the following roles: waste water treatment specialists (2), water
coagulant expert (1), municipal water treatment expert (1) and water coagulant recovery experts (2).
The interviews involved one or more participants and lasted approximately 1 hour. In the interviews the
questions asked covered the following topics: the current business model of the partner organisations,
the CaaS business model and alternative business models. The interview data were initially transcribed.
Next, using a deductive approach, the data were coded to identify information chunks to fill in the fields
of the canvas as it emerged from the synthesis of the features in previous canvases. Where data could
not be fit to the canvas, new fields were proposed, such as system drivers. The evolution of the canvas
fields and layout was also influenced from conversations with six academic and industrial experts as
part of one-to-one meetings where the canvas was presented.
3.3. Modelling the CaaS business model in the CBEMC
The data collected through the interviews were used to model the CaaS business model case in the
CBEMC. Specifically fragments from the transcripts were used to populate the fields of the CBEMC.
This is an early-stage evaluation to demonstrate the feasibility of modelling an ecosystem of business
models. The learnings from this modelling exercise are reported in the next section.
4. Circular Business Ecosystem Model Canvas
Ecosystem of business models. The CBEMC in Figure 1 details an ecosystem of business models for the
organisations operating in the circular value chain of ferric chloride. At the centre of the canvas, the
system value proposition states that the system aims to introduce a resource efficient and profitable CaaS
model for ferric chloride. Among others, the system drivers are new environmental legislation and
resource security as the supply of ferric chloride has recently been disrupted by geopolitical tensions.
The business models are organised in a clockwise arrangement describing a closed-loop system, see
Figure 1. In particular, two business models are in the reverse value chain and two in the forward. The
reverse value chain (bottom left part of the canvas) displays the business model of the material recovery
company acting as the supplier of recycled ferric chloride (BM1, see Figure 1). The forward value chain
(top part of the canvas) displays the business models of the manufacturer of wastewater treatment
chemicals (BM2) and of the water treatment company (BM3). Finally, in the reverse value chain (bottom
right part of the canvas), the business model of the energy recovery company is shown (BM4).
Value propositions, value creation and economic value capture. To achieve the mission to deliver a
CaaS business model, the economic, environmental and social value propositions of the four businesses
are stated in their business cards and linked to the system value proposition, see Figure 1. For example,
the material recovery company aims to supply ferric chloride with low environmental impact by
recovering it from sludge (environment), lease it in a closed-loop system (economic) and create new job
opportunities (social).
The CBEMC shows that the four businesses exchange flows of information, resources and value. The
CaaS business model entails value creation by chemical treatment (V-Cre1) of sludge ashes (Input
resource1) by the material recovery company (BM1) to recuperate ferric chloride (Output resource 1)
and value capture by leasing the chemical (V-Cap1) to the manufacturer. Next, the manufacturer (BM2)
creates value by producing a blend of ferric chloride containing virgin and recycled content and
marketing it (V-Cre2) to water treatment companies. It captures value by subleasing (V-Cap2) the ferric
chloride blend (Output resource 2) with a contractual obligation to return it. The ferric chloride with
recycled content is then used by the wastewater treatment company (BM3) to purify water (V-Cre3) and
outputting sludge (Output resource 3). The wastewater treatment company captures value through fees
for water discharge (V-Cap3). Finally, the sludge (Input resource 4) is collected from wastewater
treatment companies and value is created from the energy recovery company (BM4) by incinerating the
sludge (V-Cre4) and outputting ashes (Output resource 4) for the material recovery company. As the
material treatment technologies developed by the material recovery company allow to recapture almost
all the ferric chloride, the chemical can flow in a very tight loop and the CBEMC allows to visualise the
emergence and re-emergence of value over the first and the subsequent cycles of ferric chloride.
Handling ferric chloride as detailed above leads to a range of environmental and social impacts, which
are now discussed in turn.
Environmental value capture. The manufacturer would source less raw materials from foreign countries
to make ferric chloride, therefore lowering transportation emissions, see Figure 2. The wastewater
treatment company would fulfil their aim to reduce upstream emissions associated with sourcing ferric
chloride. It would also contribute to capturing ferric chloride and phosphorus from sludge as it makes a
commitment to return the sludge to the energy recovery company. The energy recovery company would
detoxify the sludge by removing pathogens and pharmaceutical residues and provide ashes to its
downstream partner. Finally, the material recovery company would be able to lower the carbon footprint
of ferric chloride production and separate heavy metals from the ashes.
Social value capture. By sourcing recycled ferric chloride, the manufacturer would be able to handle
potential security supply threats more easily, increasing national resilience. The wastewater treatment
company would no longer be able to offer sludge to farmers to use on agricultural land, but farmers will
have the option to source high quality fertilisers as phosphorous is recovered alongside ferric chloride.
As the sludge is not spread on land, crop plants would not risk being contaminated with pharmaceutical
residues mitigating potential negative health effects on consumers. The combustion of organic matter in
the sludge would release gases such as CO2, NOx and SO2, which may reduce air quality. Finally, the
material recovery company would create new plants to produce ferric chloride from waste offering local
employment opportunities.
Business models in the forward logistics section of the CBEMC
5. Discussion
This research makes a case for advancing current tools for business modelling and demonstrates how
the CBEMC allows to configure an ecosystem of business models. The CBEMC extends methods, like
the Business cycle canvas and Circular business model mapping tool for three reasons. First, it
incorporates the triple bottom line with an intuitive layout. Second, it provides a comprehensive
overview of flows in a closed-loop value chain. Third, it shows what drives integration of inter-system
business models within a value chain.
Limitations and future work. The development of the CBEMC was informed by literature review and
interviews with actors in the value chain of ferric chloride. More research is needed to present the
CBEMC to actors and understand the value it generates for them. Researching the ferric chloride value
chain, it was observed that an important dependency exists with the phosphorus value chain to the extent
that business activities related to these two flows have to be considered in conjunction. This calls for an
even broader ecosystem approach to business model innovation. Ferric chloride as a product has made
the modelling of an ecosystem of business models more treatable as it is relatively simple. It is expected
that modelling an ecosystem of business models for a more complex product will be more onerous and
require focusing on selected materials. Finally, future research on circular ecosystems should consider
investigating power shifts compared to linear ecosystems.
6. Conclusions
This paper contributes to the existing research on sustainable business models by providing a novel
framework, i.e. the Circular Business Ecosystem Model Canvas, to enable the modelling of an
ecosystem of business models taking a closed-loop perspective to sustainability. The CBEMC,
expanding on standard and economic-centred approaches to business modelling, is the first attempt to
integrate canvases built from a closed-loop perspective into an extended value network business model
canvas. This expanded canvas supports developing a more holistic perspective on sustainability-oriented
business model innovation. As such, the CBEMC has the potential to support those seeking ways to
transform organisations for sustainability.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the Strategic Innovation Programme RE:Source and the Ragn-Sells Group for
supporting and funding this research through the ‘Water treatment plants as resource hubs’ project. They are also
grateful to the Faculty of Engineering at Imperial College London for supporting Avyay Jamadagni’s research
through a Faculty of Engineering Undergraduate Research Opportunities Programme bursary. Finally, they would
like to thank the participants to the interviews and the companies involved in the project, namely Feralco, Käppala,
Sydvatten, Stockholm Vatten och Avfall, EasyMining and Svenskt Vatten.
References
Adner, R. (2016), “Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy.”, Journal of Management, Vol.
43 No. 1, pp. 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451.
Barrie, J. and Kanda, W. (2020), “Building ecologies of circular intermediaries”, In: Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D.
and Finnveden, G. (Ed.), Handbook of the circular economy, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 235-
249. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788972727.00027
Bocken, N., Strupeit, L., Whalen, K. and Nußholz, J. (2019), “A Review and Evaluation of Circular Business
Model Innovation Tools”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 2210. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082210
Braun, A.T., Schöllhammer, O. and Rosenkranz, B. (2021), “Adaptation of the business model canvas template to
develop business models for the circular economy”, 14th CIRP Conference on Intelligent Computation in
Manufacturing Engineering, 15-17 July 2020, Elsevier, pp. 698–702.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.03.093
Brown, P., Baldassarre, P., Konietzko, J., Bocken, N. and Balkenende, R. (2021), “A tool for collaborative circular
proposition design”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 297 No. 2, Article 126354.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126354
Cervo, H., Ogé, S., Maqbool, A.S., Mendez Alva, F., Lessard, L., Bredimas, A., Ferrasse, J.-H. and Van Eetvelde,
G. (2019), “A Case Study of Industrial Symbiosis in the Humber Region Using the EPOS
Methodology”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 24, pp. 6940. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246940
Daou, A., Mallat, C., Chammas, G., Cenrantola, N., Kayed, S. and Saliba, N.A. (2020), “The Ecocanvas as a
business model canvas for a circular economy”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 258 No. 2, Article
120938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120938
Dentoni, D., Pinkse, J. and Lubberink, R. (2021), “Linking sustainable business models to socio-ecological
resilience through cross-sector partnerships: A complex adaptive systems view.”, Business and Society, Vol.
60 No. 5, pp. 1216–1252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650320935015
Everett, E. (2022), “Combining the Circular Economy, Doughnut Economy, and Permaculture to Create a Holistic
Economic Model for Future Generations”, 9th International Conference on Sustainable Development, Virtual,
8–9 September 2021, MDPI, Basel, pp. 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/environsciproc2022015019
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P. and Hultink, E. (2017), “The Circular Economy - A new
sustainability paradigm?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 143, pp. 757-768.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C. and Ulgiati S. (2016), “A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a
balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 114, pp.
11-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007
Gravert, E. and Mattsson, J. (2016), Industrial Symbiosis Canvas business model between a recycling company,
an energy company, and a real estate manager, [Master Thesis], KTH.
Gue, I.H.V., Tan, R.R. and Ubando, A.T. (2022), “Causal network maps of urban circular economies”, Clean
Technologies and Environmental Policy, Vol. 24, pp. 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02117-9
Hansen, E. G., Lüdeke Freund, F. and Fichter, K. (2020), “Circular Business Model Typology: Actor, Circular
Strategy and Service Level”, (IQD Research, No. 2020-1). Institute for Integrated Quality Design (IQD),
Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
Jakobsen, O., Capra, F. (2023), “The Systems View of Life and Ecological Economics for Developing Sustainable
Business Models", In: Zsolnai, L., Walker, T., Shrivastava, P. (Ed.), Value Creation for a Sustainable World,
Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 21-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38016-7_2
Joyce, A. and Paquin, R. (2016), “The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable
business models”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 135, pp. 1474–1486.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.067
Kanda, W., Geissdoerfer, M. and Hjelm, O. (2021), “From circular business models to circular business
ecosystems”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 2814–2829.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2895
Mentink, B. (2014), Circular Business Model Innovation: A Process Framework and a Tool for Business Model
Innovation in a Circular Economy, [Master Thesis], Delft University of Technology & Leiden University.
Murray, A., Skene, K. and Haynes, K. (2017), “The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of The
Concept and Application In A Global Context”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 140, pp. 369-380.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2
Nußholz, J.L.K. (2018), “A circular business model mapping tool for creating value from prolonged product
lifetime and closed material loops.”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 197 No. 1, pp. 185-194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.112
Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2010), Business Model Generation: a Handbook for Visionaries, Game
Changers, and Challengers, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Padilla-Rivera, A., Russo-Garrido, S. and Merveille, N. (2020), “Addressing The Social Aspects Of A Circular
Economy: A Systematic Literature Review.”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 19, pp. 7912.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197912
Raworth, K. (2017), Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-century Economist, Chelsea Green
Publishing, London, United Kingdom.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke,
C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder,
P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker,
B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P. and Foley, J. (2009), “A safe operating space for humanity”,
Nature, Vol. 461, pp. 472-475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
Schroeder, P., Anggraeni, K. and Weber, U. (2019), “The Relevance of Circular Economy Practices to The
Sustainable Development Goals.”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 77–95.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12732
Sharma, N.K., Govindan, K., Lai, K.K., Chen, W.K. and Kumar, V. (2020), “The transition from linear economy
to circular economy for sustainability among SMEs: A study on prospects, impediments, and prerequisites.”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1803-1822. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2717
Takacs, F., Stechow, R. and Frankenberger, K. (2020), Circular Ecosystems: Business Model Innovation for the
Circular Economy. White Paper of the Institute of Management & Strategy, University of St. Gallen.
Velter, M. G. E., Bitzer, V. and Bocken, N. (2022), “A boundary tool for multi-stakeholder sustainable business
model innovation.”, Circular Economy and Sustainability, Vol. 2, pp. 401-431.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00103-3
Zucchella, A. and Previtali, P. (2018), “Circular business models for sustainable development: A “waste is food”
restorative ecosystem”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 274–285.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2216
