The circularity of the business model and the performance of bioeconomy firms: An interactionist business-environment model

Figures & data

Figure 1. Relationship between social capital and entrepreneurial orientation.

Figure 2. Relationship between social capital and entrepreneurial orientation, and the mediating role of dynamic capabilities.

Figure 3. Relationships between a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation and the increase in its circularity level.

Table 1. Potting Et Al. (2017) 10Rs Framework

Refuse (R0): Make the product unnecessary by abandoning its function or by providing the identical function with a radically different product;

Rethink (R1): Make a more intensive use of products (e.g., by sharing products or launching multifunctional products on the market);

Reduce (R2): Increase efficiency in manufacture or use by reducing consumption of natural resources or materials;

Reuse (R3): Reuse of products by another consumer which are still in good condition and continue to fulfil the purpose for which they were intended (second hand, product sharing);

Repair (R4): Maintenance and repair of a defective productive so that it can be used for its original purpose;

Refurbish (R5): Renovate a product and upgrade it;

Remanufacture (R6): Create new products from (parts of) old products with the same function;

Repurpose (R7): Reuse of products by another consumer which are still in good condition for a different purpose;

Recycle (R8): Process and reuse materials to obtain the same or lower quality;

Recover (R9): Incinerate waste streams with energy recovery (Franco et al., 2021).

Figure 4. Environmental factors that influence a firm.

Table 2. A summary reflecting and comparing the propositions formulated and the differences found in the literature

PROPOSITIONS	DIFFERENCES FOUND IN THE LITERATURE
Proposition 1a: Internal SC is positively related to EO.	Regarding internal SC, we only found articles that highlight its positive relationship with EO, such as those by Covin and Slevin (1989), Hornsby et al. (2009) and De Clercq et al. (2013). Indeed, De Clercq et al. (2013) analyse the roles of internal knowledge sharing and formalization. They validate the premise of firms with higher levels of internal knowledge-sharing exhibiting higher levels of EO. They extend research that theorises that the firm’s resource base can be an important driver of firm–level entrepreneurship (Kuratko et al., 2005; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998).
Proposition 1b: External SC is positively related to EO.	In the literature, we found no evidence of a negative relationship between external SC and EO, but various works find a positive relationship (Zaato et al., 2022; Davidsson & Honig, 2003; De Carolis et al., 2009). There is only one exception regarding external structural SC, in which researchers, such as Granovetter (1992) and Inkpen and Tsang (2005), say that ‘negative outcomes, such as information redundancy, inertia or internal blocking, may be caused by the high density of the network relationships of a firm’. However, researchers like Rodrigo-Alarcón et al. (2018) detected that these negative effects can be countered if firms build and DCs.
Proposition 2: Dynamic capabilities (DCs) mediate the positive influence of internal social capital (SC) (a) and external social capital (SC) (b) on entrepreneurial orientation.	In the literature, no evidence was found of a negative influence on the mediation of DCs between SC and EO. A substantial number of articles highlight the mediation of DCs (adaptive, absorptive and innovative) in enhancing the positive influence of internal and external SC on EO. Adaptive capability enables firms to achieve their objective of expanding their entrepreneurial activities to capitalise on new exploitable market opportunities (Slevin & Covin, 1997); absorptive capability is helpful for knowledge exploitation and for identifying and pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000); and innovative capability helps the firm to more efficiently exploit opportunities to anticipate and outpace rivals’ competitive actions while also improving the breadth and depth of knowledge for decision-making, which enables the autonomous individual creation of new processes, products or services (K. M. Green et al., 2008). Rodrigo-Alarcón et al. (2018) and Monteiro et al. (2017) support these statements. Indeed, research is being taken further, with García-Villaverde et al. (2018) and Rodrigo-Alarcón et al. (2020) also investigating the positive influence of one specific DC (the absorptive capacity) in the relationship between the cognitive SC and EO.
Proposition 3: EO positively influences the level of circularity of a firm’s business model.	DiVito and Bohnsack (2017) illuminate the relationship between EO and sustainability and explain how the reflexivity, i.e. the ability of the entrepreneur to assess the constraints of the environment and envision or construct alternative opportunities or ‘new social realities’ of EO helps to overcome the competing priorities in economic, social and ecological sustainability. Sung and Park (2018) analyse the positive moderating effect of EO on the relationship between sustainability orientation and entrepreneurship intention. Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) already determined that the similarities and differences between ‘sustainability’ and ‘CE’ have not been made explicit in the literature, although they found that the circular economy is viewed as a condition for sustainability, a beneficial relation, or a trade-off. However, few articles measure the level of circularity adopted by a firm. Reike et al. (2018) described the different Rs extracted from the literature in order to clarify and unify the different concepts of CE and called on policymakers, businesses and researchers to continue to advance its definition, but did not delve into the study of its adoption by companies. The only example similar to the intended future research is the report by Bassens et al. (2020), who analysed the level of circularity of the retailers in the Brussels Capital Region by using a 10 Rs questionnaire. Therefore, this area of research will be advanced in our future article by measuring the level of circularity of companies in the forest-based bioeconomy sector using the 10 Rs method of analysis. Nonetheless, the theory runs along the lines proposed in this article (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001; Singh & Ordoñez, 2016; de Jesus et al., 2018).
Proposition 4a: The socio-cultural dimension of the environment will positively and directly influence a firm’s level of circularity.	While various socio-cultural aspects, such as adherence to low environmental impact and good working conditions, are often perceived positively (Zhu et al., 2007; Salvioni & Almici, 2020), some variables, such as company commitment to remanufacturing or insufficient information on, for example, take-back processes for used products, can induce a negative attitude towards the adoption of circular practices and also create a negative image for some customers (Seitz, 2007; Jena & Sarmah, 2015). Kirchherr et al. (2018) also found a lack of consumer interest and awareness and a hesitant organizational culture to be cultural barriers). However, this research points to the positive trend of evolving attitudes towards a circular economy in society and industry, which mutually drive organisational transformation and shape consumer preferences, including public perception of a company’s image and reputation (Gong et al., 2021).
Proposition 4b: The socio-cultural dimension of the environment will strengthen the positive impact of entrepreneurial orientation on a firm’s level of circularity.
Proposition 4c: The regulatory dimension of the environment will positively and directly influence a firm’s level of circularity.	Companies may encounter several difficulties while adopting circularity, according to Stumpf et al. (2021), including ‘a lack of definitions and/or standards’ and ‘a lack of government enforcement and cooperation’. García‐Quevedo et al. (2020) supported this idea and found the complexity of legal procedures and the costs related to meeting regulations to be the most significant barriers to CE. However, ongoing efforts by governments to support these policies to promote end-of-life management and cleaner production are enabling companies to implement CE practices (Agyemang et al., 2019). Additionally, government policies on loans and credits push firms towards diversified investment for CE implementation (Jakhar et al., 2018). Wrålsen et al. (2021) recognised that national and international policies and regulations are important drivers of CEBM and suggested that institutions and governments can incentivise consumers and businesses to implement CEBM. As a result, this dimension is expected to have a greater positive than negative influence on increasing the firm’s level of circularity.
Proposition 4d: The regulatory dimension of the environment will strengthen the positive impact of entrepreneurial orientation on a firm’s level of circularity.
Proposition 4e: The technological dimension of the environment will positively and directly influence a firm’s level of circularity.	In the literature, several aspects related to technology that hinder the increase in a firm’s level of circularity were found, with examples being the lack of knowledge in identifying and assessing business model innovation opportunities (Bocken & Geradts, 2020), lack of access to digital technologies that prevents use of tools to optimise product life-cycle management (Hina et al., 2022) and high complexity in materials and number of components to obtain circular products (Urbinati et al., 2021). However, the numerous positive factors of the technological dimension reported by Lacy and Rutqvist (2016), Tura et al. (2019) and Auriault et al. (2017), among others, invite us to expect a greater positive than negative influence of technology on the increase in the firm’s level of circularity. Indeed, Chege and Wang (2020) proposed that technological innovation has a direct and positive effect on the implementation of sustainable practices, such as CE. Furthermore, as mentioned, innovativeness is core to EO (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001) and strong correlations exist between technology and innovation (Oakey & Cooper, 1991) and between CE and innovativeness inherent to technology (Khan et al., 2021).
Proposition 4f: The technological dimension of the environment will strengthen the positive impact of entrepreneurial orientation on the firm’s level of circularity.
Proposition 4g: The economic/financial dimension of the environment will positively and directly influence the firm’s level of circularity.	Financial availability of companies is essential for adopting or increasing the level of circularity within the value network, as it often requires new equipment, training, knowledge development, and, hence, substantial investments. Furthermore, even if money is not an issue, high upfront expenses might lead to the fear of lock-in (Jones et al., 2013; Matus et al., 2012; Markard et al., 2012; Metta & Badurdeen, 2012). In spite of these negative aspects within the economic/financial dimension, investors are increasingly appreciating the process of transformation towards a CEBM, as CE-based companies are known to experience a huge increase in profitability and financial viability (Li & Yu, 2011). Furthermore, financing entities see that the public sector is increasingly funding CE or modifying tax sector to sustainable production and processes, so that it is easier for companies to access such funding (Scarpellini et al., 2018; Kirchherr et al., 2018). Finally, there is evidence that CE supply chains or collaborative CE projects elicit a favourable financing decision by investors (Fischer & Pascucci, 2017). These factors help to cancel out the negative impact of the aspects mentioned above and point to a positive influence of the economic/financial dimension towards an increase in the firm’s level of circularity.
Proposition 4h: The economic/financial dimension of the environment will strengthen the positive impact of entrepreneurial orientation on the firm’s level of circularity.
Proposition 5: Increasing the level of circularity of a firm positively influences its economic, environmental and social performance.	Given its definition, the level of circularity positively influences the firm’s environmental performance, as Chiappetta Jabbour et al. (2020) stated, arguing that circular economy principles are closely related to a company’s environmental management and performance. Tura et al. (2019), supported this statement by finding that more circular systems are able to help prevent negative impacts on the environment. Thus, there is no evidence of a negative influence in the literature. Regarding the firm’s social performance, the impact of the increasing level of circularity is undoubtedly positive. Esken et al. (2018) stated that CE and corporate social responsibility are increasingly interconnected and converging concepts, as the CE puts corporate social responsibility in practice. Thus, the CE concept has begun to be integrated into the corporate social responsibility agenda of firms all over the world. Indeed, since consumers have effectively and successfully banned or rejected companies and their brands for ethical or environmental reasons (Yates, 2011), companies that do not respect societal norms, such as the CE principles, have suffered reputational damage, which can cause serious damage and, resulting in an adverse effect on business performance. Finally, it is in the economic performance where more discrepancies can be found. A growing number of mostly large-sized businesses have adopted a CE strategy in recent years, which is a novel perspective on sustainability and corporate social responsibility that enables them to improve their image, reputation, and financial performance (Fortunati et al., 2020). Mazzucchelli et al. (2022) stated that the CE approach leads firms to gain a good reputation that positively affects financial performance and Kazancoglu et al. (2018) affirmed that CE practices improve corporate reputation, which, in turn, helps firms to obtain higher financial performance, especially in terms of profitability, market share, revenue, and return on investment. However, some researchers found that CE could also negatively impact a firm’s financial performance (Doran & Ryan, 2016; Pullman et al., 2009). However, these negative ideas have been systematically disproven by consistent studies, such as those by K. W. Green et al. (2012), Reverte et al. (2016), and Martínez-Conesa et al. (2017).

Figure 5. Business-environment interactionist model.

Potting, J., Hekkert, M. P., Worrell, E., & Hanemaaijer, A. 2017. Circular economy: Measuring innovation in the product chain. 2544. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/358310/Circular.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

 Google Scholar

Franco, N. G., Almeida, M. F. L., & Calili, R. F. (2021). A strategic measurement framework to monitor and evaluate circularity performance in organizations from a transition perspective. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 1165–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.017

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100107

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Shepherd, D. A., & Bott, J. P. (2009). Managers’ corporate entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and position. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.03.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Clercq, D., Dimov, D., & Thongpapanl, N. (2013). Organizational social capital, formalization, and internal knowledge sharing in entrepreneurial orientation formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 505–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12021

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2005). A model of middle–level managers’ entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6), 699–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00104.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476. https://doi.org/10.5465/257085

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zaato, S. G., Ismail, M., Uthamaputhran, S., Saufi, R. A., Thoti, K. K., Owusu-Ansah, W., & Owusu, J. (2022). How social capital activates entrepreneurial orientation, access to government support policies, and SMEs performance in an emerging market amidst covid-19. Specialusis Ugdymas, 1(43), 553–574. https://www.sumc.lt/index.php/se/article/view/53/45

 Google Scholar

Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-90260200097-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Carolis, D. M., Litzky, B. E., & Eddleston, K. A. (2009). Why networks enhance the progress of new venture creation: The influence of social capital and cognition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(2), 527–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00302.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Granovetter, M. (1992). Economic institutions as social constructions: A framework for analysis. Acta Sociologica, 35(1), 3–11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4194749

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146–165. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.15281445

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rodrigo-Alarcón, J., García-Villaverde, P. M., Ruiz-Ortega, M. J., & Parra-Requena, G. (2018). From social capital to entrepreneurial orientation: The mediating role of dynamic capabilities. European Management Journal, 36(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.02.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Slevin, D. P., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Strategy formation patterns, performance, and the significance of context. Journal of Management, 23(2), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-20639790043-X

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Green, K. M., Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (2008). Exploring the relationship between strategic reactiveness and entrepreneurial orientation: The role of structure–style fit. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(3), 356–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2007.01.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Monteiro, A. P., Soares, A. M., & Rua, O. L. (2017). Linking intangible resources and export performance: The role of entrepreneurial orientation and dynamic capabilities. Baltic Journal of Management, 12(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-05-2016-0097

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

García-Villaverde, P. M., Rodrigo-Alarcón, J., Ruiz-Ortega, M. J., & Parra-Requena, G. (2018). The role of knowledge absorptive capacity on the relationship between cognitive social capital and entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(5), 1015–1036. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2017-0304

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rodrigo-Alarcón, J., Parra-Requena, G., & Ruiz-Ortega, M. J. (2020). Cognitive social capital and absorptive capacity as antecedents of entrepreneurial orientation: A configurational approach. Eurasian Business Review, 10(4), 493–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-020-00169-3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DiVito, L., & Bohnsack, R. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation and its effect on sustainability decision tradeoffs: The case of sustainable fashion firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(5), 569–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.05.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sung, C. S., & Park, J. Y. (2018). Sustainability orientation and entrepreneurship orientation: Is there a tradeoff relationship between them? Sustainability, 10(2), 379. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020379

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy–A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reike, D., Vermeulen, W. J., & Witjes, S. (2018). The circular economy: New or refurbished as CE 3.0?—exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135, 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bassens, D., De Boeck, S., Kębłowski, W., Lambert, D., & Reinhardt, H. (2020). Toward a circular economy scan: measuring circular practices among retailers in the Brussels Capital Region. Project: (Circity) Circular Economy and the City. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348415963_Toward_a_Circular_Economy_Scan_Measuring_Circular_Practices_among_Retailers_in_the_Brussels_Capital_Region

 Google Scholar

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-90260000048-3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Singh, J., & Ordoñez, I. (2016). Resource recovery from post-consumer waste: Important lessons for the upcoming circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.020

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Jesus, A., Antunes, P., Santos, R., & Mendonça, S. (2018). Eco-innovation in the transition to a circular economy: An analytical literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 2999–3018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.111

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. H. (2007). Green supply chain management: Pressures, practices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(11–12), 1041–1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.021

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Salvioni, D. M., & Almici, A. (2020). Transitioning toward a circular economy: The impact of stakeholder engagement on sustainability culture. Sustainability, 12(20), 8641. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208641

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Seitz, M. A. (2007). A critical assessment of motives for product recovery: The case of engine remanufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(11–12), 1147–1157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.029

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jena, S. K., & Sarmah, S. P. (2015). Measurement of consumers’ return intention index towards returning the used products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 818–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.115

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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). Ecological Economics, 150, 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.028

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gong, Z., Guo, K., He, X., & Wang, W. (2021). Corporate social responsibility based on radial basis function neural network evaluation model of low-carbon circular economy coupled development. Complexity, 2021, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5592569

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stumpf, L., Schöggl, J. P., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2021). Climbing up the circularity ladder?–A mixed-methods analysis of circular economy in business practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 316, 128158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128158

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

García‐Quevedo, J., Jové‐Llopis, E., & Martínez‐Ros, E. (2020). Barriers to the circular economy in European small and medium‐sized firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2450–2464. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2513

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Agyemang, M., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Khan, S. A., Mani, V., Rehman, S. T., & Kusi-Sarpong, H. (2019). Drivers and barriers to circular economy implementation: An explorative study in Pakistan’s automobile industry. Management Decision, 57(4), 971–994. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2018-1178

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jakhar, S. K., Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S., & Kusi-Sarpong, S. (2018). When stakeholder pressure drives the circular economy: Measuring the mediating role of innovation capabilities. Management Decision, 57(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2018-0990

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wrålsen, B., Prieto-Sandoval, V., Mejia-Villa, A., O’Born, R., Hellström, M., & Faessler, B. (2021). Circular business models for lithium-ion batteries-Stakeholders, barriers, and drivers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 317, 128393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128393

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bocken, N. M., & Geradts, T. H. (2020). Barriers and drivers to sustainable business model innovation: Organization design and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 53(4), 101950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101950

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hina, M., Chauhan, C., Kaur, P., Kraus, S., & Dhir, A. (2022). Drivers and barriers of circular economy business models: Where we are now, and where we are heading. Journal of Cleaner Production, 333, 130049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130049

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Urbinati, A., Franzò, S., & Chiaroni, D. (2021). Enablers and Barriers for Circular Business Models: An empirical analysis in the Italian automotive industry. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.01.022

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lacy, P., & Rutqvist, J. (2016). Waste to wealth: The circular economy advantage. Springer.

 Google Scholar

Tura, N., Hanski, J., Ahola, T., Ståhle, M., Piiparinen, S., & Valkokari, P. (2019). Unlocking circular business: A framework of barriers and drivers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.202

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Auriault, C., Aze, F., Morgan, J., Sopelana Gato, A., Fifer Bizjak, K., Mauko, A., Mladenovic, A., Feirrera, V., Canas Rojas, A., Costa Branco, P.M., de Oliveira Rodrigues, P., Cepria Pamplona, J.J. (2017). Comprehensive analysis of the existing and emerging approaches of circular economy models in pulp and paper industry. Paperchain. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5b510caf8&appId=PPGMS

 Google Scholar

Chege, S. M., & Wang, D. (2020). The influence of technology innovation on SME performance through environmental sustainability practices in Kenya. Technology in Society, 60, 101210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101210

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Oakey, R. P., & Cooper, S. Y. (1991). The relationship between product technology and innovation performance in high technology small firms. Technovation, 11(2), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-49729190039-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-49729190039-7

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Khan, S. A. R., Ponce, P., Tanveer, M., Aguirre-Padilla, N., Mahmood, H., & Shah, S. A. A. (2021). Technological innovation and circular economy practices: Business strategies to mitigate the effects of COVID-19. Sustainability, 13(15), 8479. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158479

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jones, P. T., Geysen, D., Tielemans, Y., Van Passel, S., Pontikes, Y., Blanpain, B., Hoekstra, N., & Hoekstra, N. (2013). Enhanced Landfill Mining in view of multiple resource recovery: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 55, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.021

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Matus, K. J., Xiao, X., & Zimmerman, J. B. (2012). Green chemistry and green engineering in China: Drivers, policies and barriers to innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 32, 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.033

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), 955–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Metta, H., & Badurdeen, F. (2012). Integrating sustainable product and supply chain design: Modeling issues and challenges. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(2), 438–446. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2012.2206392

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li, J., & Yu, K. (2011). A study on legislative and policy tools for promoting the circular economic model for waste management in China. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 13(2), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-011-0010-4

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Scarpellini, S., Marín-Vinuesa, L. M., Portillo-Tarragona, P., & Moneva, J. M. (2018). Defining and measuring different dimensions of financial resources for business eco-innovation and the influence of the firms’ capabilities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 204, 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.320

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fischer, A., & Pascucci, S. (2017). Institutional incentives in circular economy transition: The case of material use in the Dutch textile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.038

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Seuring, S., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A. B., Jugend, D., De Camargo Fiorini, P., Latan, H., & Izeppi, W. C. (2020). Stakeholders, innovative business models for the circular economy and sustainable performance of firms in an emerging economy facing institutional voids. Journal of Environmental Management, 264, 110416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110416

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Esken, B., Franco-García, M. L., & Fisscher, O. A. (2018). CSR perception as a signpost for circular economy. Management Research Review, 41(5), 586–604. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-02-2018-0054

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yates, L. S. (2011). Critical consumption: Boycotting and buycotting in Europe. European Soceties, 13(2), 191–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2010.514352

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fortunati, S., Martiniello, L., & Morea, D. (2020). The strategic role of the corporate social responsibility and circular economy in the cosmetic industry. Sustainability, 12(12), 5120. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125120 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125120

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mazzucchelli, A., Chierici, R., Del Giudice, M., & Bua, I. (2022). Do circular economy practices affect corporate performance? Evidence from Italian large‐sized manufacturing firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2298

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kazancoglu, Y., Kazancoglu, I., & Sagnak, M. (2018). A new holistic conceptual framework for green supply chain management performance assessment based on circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 1282–1299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.015

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Doran, J., & Ryan, G. (2016). The importance of the diverse drivers and types of environmental innovation for firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(2), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1860

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pullman, M. E., Maloni, M. J., & Carter, C. R. (2009). Food for thought: Social versus environmental sustainability practices and performance outcomes. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(4), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2009.03175.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Green, K. W., Zelbst, P. J., Meacham, J., & Bhadauria, V. S. (2012). Green supply chain management practices: Impact on performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(3), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211227126

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reverte, C., Gomez-Melero, E., & Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. (2016). The influence of corporate social responsibility practices on organizational performance: Evidence from Eco-Responsible Spanish firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2870–2884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.128

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martínez-Conesa, I., Soto-Acosta, P., & Palacios-Manzano, M. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and its effect on innovation and firm performance: An empirical research in SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2374–2383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.038

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar