The Spiral Economy – a conceptual framework for

integrating the social dimension in Circular Models

Alison Ashby alison.ashby@plymouth.ac.uk
Plymouth Business School, Plymouth

Aline Marian Callegaro

Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre

Kemi Adeyeye
University of Bath, Bath

Maria Granados
Westminster Business School, London

Abstract
The Circular Economy (CE) translates nature’s restorative, regenerative processes into an
industrial model to replace the dominant linear approach. It aims to keep products,
components, and materials at their highest utility and value, and focuses on preserving
natural capital, optimising resource yields, and managing finite stocks and renewable
flows. However, it has been challenged for greater emphasis on economic and
environmental dimensions of sustainability with less action on achieving social value for
those involved in the cycles. This paper aims to address this by proposing a more socially
integrated CE through an original conceptual framework called the Spiral Economy (SE).

Keywords: Circular Economy, social value, social capital, innovation

Introduction
The Circular Economy (CE) concept has deep-rooted origins and cannot be associated
with a specific year or author, but its practical applications to economic systems and
industrial processes have grown significantly since the late 1970s. It has evolved from a
number of related environmental concepts and practices initiated by academics, thought-
leaders and businesses including the cradle to cradle concept (McDonough and Braungart
2009), biomimicry (Benyus 1997) and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. The latter was
established in 2010 in order to accelerate the transition to the CE and in 2012, the
Foundation published the first in a series of reports titled Towards the Circular Economy,
featuring analysis by McKinsey and Co. (Ellenmacarthurfoundation.org).
The CE is designed to be restorative and regenerative, and through a continuous cycle
aims to keep products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all
times. It distinguishes between technical and biological cycles, preserves and enhances
natural capital, optimises resource yields, and minimises system risks by managing finite
stocks and renewable flows (US Chamber of Commerce Foundation, 2015). The CE
purports to address the three sustainability dimensions, but has been challenged for overt
emphasis on the environmental and economic aspects (Ashby et al. 2012) with less done
to achieve social value for those involved in creating the restorative and regenerative
cycles. This paper presents a review of the CE and its key models and proceeds to discuss
social concepts that could be better integrated into a CE approach and maps them against
the reviewed models. It concludes by proposing a conceptual map of an integrated Spiral
Economy (SE) model to address the social gaps in the CE.

The Circular Economy (CE)

The theoretical background of the CE considers the distinction between neoclassical
economics and steady state economics. The CE is an alternative model to both economic
ideas and has origins in ecological economics, environmental economics and industrial
ecology (Singh and Ordoñez 2016). Neoclassical economics focuses on efficient
allocation of resources in the market and fails to provide analytical tools that consider the
exhaustible nature of natural resources. The approach of steady-state economy aims to fill
this gap by keeping economic activities within the constraints imposed by nature, while
the CE suggests an economic model regulated according to the laws of nature (Ghisellini
et al. 2016). The CE and its practice have almost exclusively been developed by
practitioners (Korhonen et al. 2018). The worldwide implementation of the CE still seems
in early stages (Ghisellini et al. 2016; Korhonen et al. 2018) and focuses on recycling
rather than reuse. Nonetheless, the CE is receiving increasing attention as a way to
overcome the current production and consumption model based on continuous growth
and increasing resource throughput (Moreau et al. 2017; Sauvé et al. 2016).
The CE addresses the environmental dimension through resource, and product and
waste cycles, with the social dimension considered a by-product. It limits throughput flow
to a level that nature tolerates and utilises ecosystem cycles in economic cycles by
respecting their natural reproduction rates (Korhonen et al. 2018). This illustrates how
end-of-life of product and material is at the centre of the process, representing a key event
that determines the future of those products and materials. By promoting the adoption of
closed loop production patterns within an economic system, the CE aims to increase the
efficiency of resource use, with special focus on urban and industrial waste, to achieve a
better balance between the sustainability dimensions of Economy, Environment and
Society (Ghisellini et al. 2016). This implies the adoption of cleaner production patterns,
an increase of producer and consumer responsibility and awareness, the use of renewable
technologies and materials and the adoption of suitable, clear and stable policies and tools.
The successful transition towards the CE comes from involvement of all actors of the
society and their capacity to create suitable collaboration strategies.
Hobson and Lynch (2016) explained that programs and policies for the CE are fast
becoming key to regional and international plans for creating sustainable futures. It has
been taken up by the European Commission and global business leaders alike, framed as
a technologically driven and economically profitable vision of continued growth in a
resource-scarce world. However, an important barrier to its development is the lack of
thorough analysis of the necessary social and institutional conditions (Ghisellini et al.
2016; Moreau et al. 2017; Hobson and Lynch 2016). While ecological survival and
renewal, and less wasteful use of finite resource benefits humankind, there is no explicit
recognition of the social aspects experienced by those involved. There is also a developed
country bias, which enables continued economic, industrial and global growth without
reflecting the impacts on developing countries (Winans et al. 2017). Thus it is unclear
how the CE will enable greater social equality, equity, gender, racial and religious
equality, financial equality, or equality of social opportunity. The framework needs urgent
attention (Murray et al. 2017) as it does not explicitly incorporate the different dimensions
and contexts.

Methodology
The research procedure commenced with a literature search using the databases of
SpringerLink (MetaPress), Wiley Online Library, Elsevier and Science Direct with the
keywords of ‘circular economy model, ‘circular economy framework’ and ‘CE model’.
Data relevant for the SE model was derived by using keywords such as ‘circular economy’
+ social models/social frameworks and then shortlisting the top 20 most relevant journal
paper and key publications from 2008 – 2018. Other documentary sources such as reports
were reviewed to support the core sampled text. The analysis focused on the similarities,
differences and gaps of the models based on the economic, environmental and social
dimensions. Important specificities of the models were also discussed. Text mining and
data visualisation strategies were used to establish thematic clusters and sub-thematic
classifications of important concepts in the sampled literature.
Textual analysis is a broad term for extracting, analysing and deriving knowledge from
textual data. The data can then be processed using a number of tools and techniques which
includes information extraction, content summarization, information visualization,
question answering, concept linkage, text classification and clustering (Fan et al. 2006).
Specifically, the text classification approach was used and entailed manually identifying,
highlighting and assigning keywords from documents into the three thematic categories
of social, environment and economic. The objective was to derive a conceptual map of
existing trends, and identify key concepts, ideas or tasks linked to economic,
environmental and social dimensions of the CE. It was possible to derive limitations, as
well as opportunities for emerging knowledge towards the proposed SE approach.

A Review of Key CE Models

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation model differentiates the technological and biological
nutrient-based products and materials cycle through the economic system. Industrial
symbiosis increases the intensity of localised resource use squeezing more value from the
same initial inputs through co-located manufacturing processes. This contrasts with the
EPL approach which seeks to stretch the economic life of goods and materials by
retrieving them from post-production consumer phases to reuse or repurpose products at
a later date after their consumption (Gregson et al. 2015). This Resource Based approach
promotes closing resource-use loops, a shift from fossil to renewable energy sources, and
translating efficiency gains into a reduction of the overall level of resource consumption.
Recycling is still the most widespread strategy employed to achieve a CE (Haas et al.
2105). However the moral economy dimensions of this approach are emerging as a source
of concern as economic sustainability is often found to be privileged over environmental
and social sustainability, or moral and ethical values (Murray et al. 2017). Also, there is
the risk of portraying global recycling as the global dumping of wastes on the people and
environments of the Global South by consumers and businesses of the Global North.
The CE business model has evolved as the demands for corporate responsibility has
increased. This means that organisations are refining their (1) Technological (maximise
material and energy efficiency, create value from ‘waste’, and substitute products and
process with renewable and natural ones); (2) Social (deliver functionality, instead of
having ownership, adopt a stewardship role, and encourage sufficiency); and (3)
Organisational (re-purpose the business for society and the environment, and develop
scale-up solutions) processes to maximise value creation and economic advantage. Rather
than a separate CE business model, Bocken et al. (2016) argue that design and strategy
need to mutually occur in a closely linked loop. This suggests the need to implement a
goal or vision focused on ‘circularity’ to empower innovators to fully capture the CE’s
business potential within the overarching objective to reduce sustainability pressures.
Leider and Rashid (2016) reviewed previous research to understand relevant aspects
of CE and proposed a framework and implementation strategy for a regenerative economy
and natural environment. Their framework emphasized a combined view of 3
interconnected aspects i.e. environmental impact, resources scarcity and economic
benefits, and broadly acknowledges the role of stakeholders. The legislation about
Environmental impact affects the Economic benefits but can also create a value
perception. Speed of waste generation affects resource scarcity and can change the speed
of depletion and the environmental impact. Price volatility and resource dependency can
create Economic benefits and reduce Resource scarcity (Leider and Rashid 2016). The
framework omits detailed insights into the social/cultural dimensions.
Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) employed case studies to conceptualise a sustainability
business model with 2 types of attribute; the social characteristics under Structural refer
to understanding stakeholders’ needs and expectations, educating and consulting
stakeholders while Cultural has a more encompassing social approach as follows:
● Economic characteristics, such as considering profit as a means to do something
more not as an end, which is also a reason for shareholders to invest
● Environmental characteristics, such as treating nature as a stakeholder
● Social characteristics, such as balancing stakeholders’ expectations, sharing
resources among stakeholders, and building relationships
● Holistic characteristics, such as focusing on medium to long-term effects
Witjes and Lozano (2016) highlighted the importance of collaborative transactions
during sustainable procurement practices in business models for the CE. The socio-
cultural specifications will help the parties to hire and train personnel specifically for the
co-development process, addressing the Social innovation and Multi-stakeholder
involvement components of the resource efficiency transformations. Their framework is
proposed to enable better collaboration and conflict resolution between the parties,
alignment of specifications, understanding of the possibilities and challenges in delivering
the product/service combination, and closing loops that will reduce the amount of raw
materials needed and waste generated, thus better contributing to the CE.
None of the contributors in the current CE approaches covers the full circle, despite
the recognized need for sustainability to (re)balance social, ecological and economic
values (Frank Boons and Lüdeke-Freund 2012). This does not say that they do not aim
for sustainability but indicates that the current concept does not support them well enough
to balance People, Planet and Profit. As a result, CE variations are emerging. Mentinks’s
(2014) model highlights the role of key actors in the CE concept, and their purposes, goals
and interests in promoting a CE. Moreau et al. (2017) choose the Social and Solidarity
Economy (SSE) to show how institutional conditions can contribute to the development
of a CE by considering social institutions, societal norms, and political considerations by
clearly defining who bears the costs of economic activities and working toward a more
inclusive economy. The SSE’s focus is to give more importance to people and the planet,
rather than accumulation of profit (Moreau et al. 2017). The social dimension is
underrepresented in the CE and there is a theoretical and practical gap to understand what
a fully inclusive circular economy should look like. The proposed SE model can enable a
more complete, holistic response to the challenges of implementing sustainability in
business.
The Spiral Economy (SE)
The CE is based on the closed cycle of production and use of resources. However, this
approach does not acknowledge impacts outside the loop, most especially the impact on
society and does not consider that Economy is a subsystem within a Society, which sits
within an Ecosystem. It is necessary to recognise the interconnectivity between the
different spheres as well as their boundaries. This implies a need for multiple and
interconnected spirals, which adds complexity, but also facilitates a deeper understanding
of the relationship between social and natural capital. Having established a conceptual
foundation for the SE, it is necessary to understand how it aligns with and develops the
CE, which is self-fulfilling, constantly feeding back into itself. Social concepts can be
used to develop a SE underpinned by knowledge as well as a learning culture that
integrates the different areas of society and natural ecosystems. It can collaborate for a
more integrated, socially progressive and inclusive approach that changes the way the
economy operates and improves quality of life. The new socially-progressive approach
proposes the three foundations of Social Value, Open Innovation and Social Capital.

Social Value
Social value integrates individual and group dimensions, as its impact has implications
not only on improving individuals’ lives, but also on society as a whole. Collective social
value includes aspects that are necessary and desirable for life in society and the
coexistence of people, such as safety and environmental quality. Social value is broadly
defined as a positive change in subjective well-being initiated by a social intervention
(Clark et al. 2004). It can also be considered as ‘the creation of benefits or reductions of
costs for society—through efforts to address social needs and problems—in ways that go
beyond the private gains and general benefits of market activity’ (Phills et al. 2008 p. 39).
The first step in analysing social value is to define what is meant by a social problem
in a specific context (Yunus, 2007). This concept of satisfaction threshold has important
implications since it serves to identify the social character of an intervention (Martin and
Osberg 2007). Social value needs to be understood as a multidimensional concept as it
includes different domains such as health, food, security, employment, economic
stability, and sense of community belonging (Bagnoli and Megali 2011). The welfare of
both individuals and society requires that a minimum level exists simultaneously in each
of the dimensions (Andrews and Withey 1974). However, this is challenging since all
dimensions are desirable and necessary, but at the same time it is difficult to compare the
creation of value of different nature depending on the dimensions.
Another key element is how social value can be obtained and created by an
organisation, which is performing in a market that prioritises the creation of economic
value (Austin et al. 2006). Socially-focused organisations competing in the same markets
can find it difficult to operate and scale up. This is of key importance when considering
the understanding and potential measure of social value created within CE models. A
traditional perspective is the separation between social, environmental and economic
values, but SE proposes the shared value concept, which implies that all investments are
understood to operate simultaneously in these domains, so there are no trade-offs, but a
concurrent pursuit of social, financial, and environmental value (Wilson and Post 2013).
This merging of values makes more complex demands on business (Fowler 2000) as it
involves innovative and entrepreneurial approaches which can create value in ways that
are mutually reinforcing (Wilson and Post 2013). Nonetheless, there is increasing
expectation that the private sector can make substantial contributions to the quality of life
in the communities where they operate as well as their environment (Sisodia et al. 2007).
(Open) Innovation
Continuous Improvement (CI) which is progressively spiral in nature implies the need to
maintain open channels of communication, a two-way feedback that allows the system to
learn what it knows and does not know. This ability to learn and know can result in new
ideas that benefit the organization and has been associated with innovation, as ‘the process
of translating ideas into useful new products, processes and services’ (Bessant and Tidd
2013 p.29). CI leads to Open Innovation (Chesbrough, 2006), which assumes businesses
should use external as well as internal ideas, internal and external paths to the market, and
society should advance the development of new ideas. This requires collaborative
methods that enhance the flow of knowledge to drive innovation within the organisation.
New ideas that originate from this approach can result not only in new products or
services, but also in a new process of enhancement, which enables social and
environmental development.
Open innovation implies that a single company cannot innovate their technological,
social and organisational processes in isolation. Instead, it has to collaborate with different
types of stakeholders in order to stay competitive and sustainable (Chesborough 2006),
through acquiring ideas, knowledge and resources. Thus, the open innovation approach
facilities the idea of spiral development, when a new circle is established in an upward
trend each time innovation and change is achieved, incorporating feedback from the
system in an open-based approach. Whilst the benefit of such innovation and change
(social, economic, and environment) redistributes downwards to benefit all concerned.
This emphasises the need for collaboration amongst a range of public, private, voluntary
and civil bodies to facilitate and improve cycles of production and use of resources.
When businesses realise that knowledge is widely distributed and how their impact
spreads across whole socio-economic ecosystems, where they cannot depend on their own
resources, particularly in tackling challenging tasks associated with social and
environmental issues, having external connections is important as well as being able to
trace and assess their impact. This highlights the importance of knowledge and learning
from internal and external sources. It is through knowledge that SE can effectively be
based on innovation cycles. An SE approach can also provide a new and more innovative
perspective of renewal and recycling, where open innovations can be encouraged, first,
identifying what we already know (in the CE system), and then incorporating and
collaborating with different actors to co-create sustainable solutions and alternatives.

Social Capital
Social capital is the ‘sum of the actual and potential resources within, available through,
and derived from the network of relationships by an individual or social unit’ (Nahapiet
and Ghoshal 1998 p. 243), and can enable social value and innovation. It contributes to
the information sharing, cooperation, collaboration, culture and strategic decision making
required to enable the CE. Structural capital represents the pattern and configuration of
impersonal connections between individuals within a network and is seen as social
interaction ties existing between a firm and its suppliers (Roden and Lawson 2014).
Relational capital refers to the ‘trust, obligation, and identification present between actors
in a relationship’ (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998 p. 251) and the kinds of relationships
developed through a history of interactions; key aspects are respect, friendship and trust.
Cognitive capital represents shared goals, vision and values and facilitates development
of common understandings, collective philosophies, outlining ways for actors to
coordinate their exchange, and share thinking processes (Roden and Lawson 2014).
 The relational-cognitive configuration represents the extent to which relationships are
based on trust, expectations of reciprocity and cognitive identification, and contributes to
the strength of ties and embeddedness (Pirolo and Presutti 2010). Cognitive
embeddedness between network actors is positively associated with relational
embeddedness, in that alignment between beliefs, assumptions and expectations
reinforces norms of reciprocity (Roden and Lawson 2014). Relational capital therefore
stems from the availability of a shared culture and belief system generated through
cognitive capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998); as a result, parties become more inclined
to trust one another, with the expectation of reciprocity, interaction and working towards
shared, collective goals (Carey and Lawson, 2011).
Social capital offers a perspective beyond economically-focused models and can
address limitations of the CE (Carey and Lawson, 2011). It facilitates resource exchange
and innovation, aids creation of intellectual capital, strengthens relationships and ensures
business survival (Prasad et al. 2012). It can generate better information flows to enable
collaboration and represents resources embedded in social relations, which can be
mobilised when actors wish to increase the effectiveness of their actions, and the personal
dimension of relationships can translate into embedded intangible resources (Pirolo and
Presutti 2010). Social capital therefore allows the role of shared values, culture and
principles to be explored as a foundation for developing the SE concept.

Discussion
This paper argues the missing social link in the CE can be addressed through three social
concepts: value, innovation and capital. The findings were consolidated using mind maps
which are qualitative in nature and develop diagrams to represent concepts, ideas or tasks
linked to and arranged radially around a central keyword or idea. Primary branches
represent major ideas or themes around the central topic, and secondary branches include
more concrete illustrative examples or sub-themes (Buzan 1993). A mind map was
created for each sustainability dimension and then consolidated into the final SE model.
Figure 1 presents the conceptual SE map and highlights the synergies and overlaps as
well as current gaps in the CE approach. The CE approach is underpinned by concepts of
natural capital, whilst the SE emphasizes both social and natural capital dimensions to
business, industrial and resource sourcing, and management processes. It is intended to
prevent processes that currently leave little room for social progression especially for the
individual, communities and social enterprises at the bottom of the scale, and at whose
expense natural value and capital is frequently derived. The SE map promotes an
imperative for better interconnectivity, equity and recognition between the 3 dimensions
and emphasises intangible facets such as trust, friendship and shared values that
encourage innovative and value-driven collaborations. It provides a template for further
study and presents a counter-argument to the CE, which is based on fixed roles and social
status for stakeholders within its circular processes. The proposed SE does not argue
against this, but proposes a tripartite cluster to facilitate better collaboration, co-creation
and development of social ties among the different levels of society. The ‘spiral’
represents the notion of dynamic interrelationships and interconnectedness between
natural, economic and social factors in a process of mutual learning, knowledge
enhancing, and CI. It enjoins the CE into more innovative ways of creating and delivering
sustained social, environmental and economic value, without detrimental impact on or
trade-off against any of these dimensions. The embedding of social principles can also
resolve inequalities that can result from natural resource issues and can be amplified by
the economic-focused industrial processes used to address them.
 Figure 1: Mind map of the Spiral Economy (SE) dimensions and sub-themes

Figure 2: Enhanced mind map of social dimension of the Spiral Economy (SE)

For the Environment the existing emphasis is on resource flow from natural materials
to products through industrial processes, and processes for extending product and material
life. There are strategies for protecting nature, ecologies and ecosystems through
responsible sources, promoting local biodiversity etc. and nature is referred to as a vital
stakeholder. For the Economy, SE proposes the shared value concept. It means that
investments enable new opportunities and profit, while operating simultaneously in the
others’ spheres and enabling innovative practices across all three dimensions. Figure 2
shows that the social aspects of the CE have three main actors: the customer, people
including individuals and communities, and institutions including government and
industry. A key finding was that social practices such as balancing stakeholders’
expectations, sharing resources among stakeholders, and building relationships is crucial
to not just social sustainability but also environmental and economic sustainability. Figure
2 is an enhanced mind map which shows the integration of social opportunity through
information, knowledge processes, and multi-stakeholder engagement and empowerment
for co-development and social innovation. This links with maximising social value
through strategies like social enterprises and lastly, engendering a positive framework for
ethical practices that is not exploitative of the people as the key resource in any economic
or environmental endeavours. The reviewed literature agreed that the social dimension is
central to an effective sustainability-oriented approach that is designed to preserve natural
systems, resources, and process. Social processes are not isolated or independent of
environmental or economic processes but are inherent across all three dimensions and can
contribute to value enhancing processes. Nature can be considered a stakeholder together
with the people and communities situated or affected by it e.g. through resource
exploitation, waste production or embargoes associated with resource use. By taking
advantage of social capital, new innovative technological solutions and bottom-up and
top-down economic models a process can be deployed to ensure that the physical and
moral boundaries of resource exploitation are mutually defined; associated social sectors,
especially those economically dependent on the environment, or informal enterprises
associated with resource use are protected, and receive recognition for their contributions.

Conclusion and Future Research

Based on a review of CE models, content analysis and mind mapping, this paper has
presented key synergies as well as current gaps in the CE approach, most notably the
limited response to the social dimension. These limitations were discussed in relation to
relevant socially-motivated models to highlight benefits that can be achieved through
interconnectivity between the different economic, environmental and social spheres, and
introduced concepts beyond what is captured within the current CE. A SE concept was
presented as a potential framework for integration of social value, knowledge co-creation,
and social capital within the CE to address its inherent limitations. Future policies and
processes should benefit from such multiple and interconnected spirals, that add social
value to the CE, as well as a deeper understanding of the relationship between social and
natural capital. Finally, this approach means that different stakeholders can be part of a
socially progressive CE model and positively collaborate for ecosystem improvements.
The proposed SE needs to be underpinned by a knowledge and learning culture that is
embedded within the system and dynamically integrates the different areas of society and
natural ecosystems. This can be explored through existing knowledge creation theories,
which are already based on the concept of spirals and continuous feedback. The SE also
offers potential for new and more innovative perspectives of renewal and recycling, where
open innovations can be encouraged, first through identifying what we already know, and
then incorporating and collaborating with different actors to co-create sustainable
solutions and alternatives. It will enable more actors to be involved that previously did
not have the chance because the processes are too isolated from the whole. The mind map
provides a theoretical basis for further study into the concepts and composition of a
formalised SE model, which develops and enhances current CE research and practice.
There is also a strong focus on understanding the intangible aspects of sustainability such
as trust, culture and values to address the social dimension, rather than the process-driven
environmental focus which dominates in the CE.
References
Ashby, A., Smith, M. H., Leat, M. (2012) Making Connections: A Review of Supply Chain Management
and Sustainability Literature. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17: 497-516
Bagnoli, L., Megali, C. (2011) Measuring performance in social enterprises. Non-profit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly 40(1): 149-165
Benyus, J. (1997) Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature. Harper Collins, New York
Bocken, N. M., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., van der Grinten, B. (2016) Product design and business model
strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering 33(5): 308-320
Boons, F., Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013) Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and steps
towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production 45: 9-19
Braungart, M., McDonough, W. (2009) Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things. Vintage, NY
Buzan, T. (1993) The Mind Map Book. BBC Books, London
Carey, S., Lawson, B. (2011) Governance and social capital formation in buyer-supplier relationships.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 22: 152-170
Chesborough, H. (2006) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Brighton
Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2013) Towards the circular economy: opportunities for the consumer goods
sector (Vol 2). https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/towards-the-circular-economy-
vol-2-opportunities-for-the-consumer-goods-sector. Accessed 16 Jan 2018
Fan, W., Wallace, L., Rich, S. Zhang, Z., (2006) Tapping the power of text mining. Communications of the
ACM 49(9): 76-82
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S. (2016) A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a
balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 114: 11-32
Gregson, N., Crang, M., Fuller, S., Holmes, H. (2015) Interrogating the circular economy: the moral
economy of resource recovery in the EU. Economy and Society 44(2): 218-243
Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Heinz, M. (2015) How circular is the global economy? An
assessment of material flows, waste production, and recycling in the European Union and the world in 2005.
Journal of Industrial Ecology 19(5): 765-777
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., Seppälä, J. (2018) Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations.
Ecological Economics 143: 37-46
Mentink, B. (2014) Circular business model innovation: a process framework and a tool for business model
innovation in a circular economy. Dissertation, Delft University of Technology
Moreau, V., Sahakian, M., Griethuysen, P. van, Vuille, F. (2017) Coming full circle: why social and
institutional dimensions matter for the Circular Economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology 21(3): 497-506
Murray, A., Skene, K., Haynes, K. (2017) The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of the
concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics 140(3): 369-380
Nahapiet, J., Ghoshal, S. (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organisational advantage.
Academy of Management Review 23: 242-66
Pirolo, L., Presutti, M. (2010) The Impact of Social Capital on the Start-ups' Performance Growth. Journal
of Small Business Management 48: 197-227
Prasad, S., Tata, J., Guo, X. (2012) Sustaining small businesses in the United States in times of recession.
Journal of Advances in Management Research 9: 8-28
Roden, S., Lawson, B. (2014) Developing social capital in buyer–supplier relationships: The contingent
effect of relationship-specific adaptations. International Journal of Production Economics 151: 89-99
Sauvé, S., Bernard, S., Sloan, P. (2016) Environmental sciences, sustainable development and circular
economy: Alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary research. Environmental Development 17: 48-56
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
Stubbs, W., Cocklin, C. (2008) Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model”. Organization and
Environment 21(2): 103-127
Wilson, F., Post, J.E. (2013) Business models for people, planet (& profits): Exploring the phenomena of
social business, a market-based approach to social value creation. Small Business Economics 40(3)
Winans, K.; Kendall, A., Deng, H. (2017) The history and current applications of the circular economy
concept. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68: 825-833
Witjes, S., Lozano, R. (2016) Towards a more Circular Economy: Proposing a framework linking
sustainable public procurement and sustainable business models. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
112: 37-44
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010) Building social business models: Lessons from the
Grameen experience. Long range planning 43(2): 308-325