Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Mapping the social dimension of the circular economy

Annika Mies *, Stefan Gold
Faculty of Economics and Management, University of Kassel, Kleine Rosenstraße 1-3, 34117, Kassel, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Klemeš The circular economy concept has been promoted as a response to increasing resource scarcity and as a driver of
the transition towards a more sustainable economic system. The predominant focus of most circular economy-
Keywords: related approaches is, however, within the environmental and economic dimension, whereas social aspects,
Circular economy such as labour practices, human rights or community well-being, have only been peripherally and sporadically
Social sustainability
integrated into the circular economy concept. To achieve a truly sustainable alternative to the current economic
Conceptual integration
system, a more balanced integration of the social sustainability dimension is essential. This study addressed this
Literature review
Causal loop diagrams gap by thoroughly investigating the social dimension of sustainability as part of the circular economy concept by
means of a two-step research design. Based on a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed English language
research papers, interrelations of the identified social aspects were explored through causal loop modelling,
mapping the extant intellectual territory at the intersection of social sustainability and circular economy. By
identifying both overarching and actor-specific social aspects, this paper laid the groundwork for a clearer
conceptual integration of the social dimension into the circular economy. Thereby, the problem of scattered
coverage of social issues was highlighted, and collaboration was identified as main facilitator of a circular
economy. Education, participation and legislative support emerged as central leverage points for the trans­
formation towards a sustainable circular economy. Given the blurred boundaries between often-used social,
economic and environmental indicators, more de facto social factors, beyond those closely related to economic or
ecological factors, should be considered, and a stronger normative stance in future research is encouraged.

1. Introduction discussion is still evolving, which is reflected by the diverging discourse

The concept of a circular economy represents an alternative
approach to a linear (i.e. take-make-dispose) economy, focusing on
slowing and closing resource flows and extending product life cycles
through reuse and recycling (Bocken et al., 2016). The circular economy
has been promoted by politics (European Commission, 2015; Mathews
et al., 2011), practitioners and think tanks (Braungart et al., 2007; Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2013) and within the academic discourse
(Ghisellini et al., 2016; Korhonen et al., 2018) as a response to
increasing resource scarcity and as a driver for the transition to a more
sustainable economic system. As an umbrella concept, circular economy
has been translated into the business realm by a variety of approaches
and ideas, such as industrial symbiosis, closed-loop supply chains or
circular product design. These approaches share major principles, such
as increasing resource efficiency, extending product life cycles and
closing material and nutrient cycles (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017).
While the idea behind a circular economy is not new, its scholarly
on its conceptual scope (Homrich et al., 2018; Kirchherr et al., 2017).
According to Korhonen et al. (2018b), the majority of the academic
discussion surrounding the circular economy field primarily considers
the practical stage thus far, represented by tools and practical measures.
Critical discussions on the circular economy’s theoretical foundations,
such as the integration of and contribution to sustainable development,
have yet to take place (Schröder et al., 2019). The predominant focus
within the circular economy scholarly discourse lies clearly on the
environmental and economic dimensions, whereas social aspects, such
as labour practices, human rights and community well-being, have only
been peripherally and sporadically integrated into the circular economy
concept (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Therefore, several authors have
called for greater consideration of the circular economy’s social
dimension to establish a holistically sustainable approach (e.g. Blomsma
and Brennan, 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2017; Merli et al., 2018).
One reason for the insufficient consideration of the social dimension
may be a lack of conceptual clarity. Conceptual clarity, however, is

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mies@uni-kassel.de (A. Mies).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128960
Received 3 November 2020; Received in revised form 12 August 2021; Accepted 5 September 2021
Available online 9 September 2021
0959-6526/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Mies and S. Gold
necessary to advance the circular economy discourse and ensure its full
contribution to sustainable development. As Murray et al. (2017)
argued, “only if societal needs are defined and included in the basic
formulation, can we hope to build on all three pillars of sustainability.
This needs urgent attention in the Circular Economy conceptual
framework” (p. 376). This paper seeks to clarify both the scope and
relevance of the social dimension of the circular economy concept,
namely, how it is and how it should be reflected in circular economy
research. It aims to contribute to the conceptual clarity of the circular
economy with a comprehensive recognition and integration of the sus­
tainability paradigm, particularly the social dimension, as called for by
Reike et al. (2018). Mapping these social aspects explores their dynamic
interrelations and unveils leverage points from which both managerial
and policy implications are derived and future research objectives are
pointed out. Based on an in-depth analysis of the social concerns existing
within the realm of the circular economy, the following research ques­
tions were addressed:
I. How is the social sustainability dimension considered in the aca­
demic circular economy discourse and what are the re-occurring social
aspects?
II. How do these social aspects relate to each other and interlink the
different actor groups relevant to the circular economy?
The next section reviews the literature on the intersection of circular
economy and social sustainability. Then, the research design and pro­
cedure are described. Subsequently, a framework that maps the social
aspects identified by their actor groups is presented. In the concluding
section, the problem of scattered coverage of social issues and collabo­
ration as main facilitator of a circular economy are highlighted.
Leverage points for spurring transformation towards a circular economy
comprehensively founded on all three sustainability dimensions (i.e.
environmental, economy and social) are pointed out. Finally, the chal­
lenges of integrating social aspects into the circular economy concept
are discussed by referring to operationalisation problems (i.e. in­
dicators), blurred boundaries between economic, environmental and
social dimensions and the predominant instrumental approach to cir­
cular economy, which represent a hurdle for stronger integration of
social sustainability.
2. Theoretical background
The next section provides a brief overview on the social dimension of
sustainability, and the current state of research on the intersection of
social sustainability and circular economy.
2.1. Social sustainability
Sustainability was first addressed in the context of sustainable
forestry, focusing on environmental and economic continuity (Carlo­
witz, 1713). Today, especially in the corporate sustainability context, it
is commonly acknowledged as a three-dimensional approach comprised
of economic, environmental and social dimensions (Elkington, 1998).
The regarded scope of these dimensions varies from a general focus on a
company’s overall financial, environmental and social performance
(Carter and Rogers, 2008) to specifically considering particular under­
lying issues, such as employee satisfaction, community complaints and
stakeholder participation (Presley et al., 2007).
The relationship between these dimensions can be viewed from
different perspectives. Marcus et al. (2010) differentiated between
disparate, intertwined and embedded views on the natural, societal and
business dimensions. While the intertwined view is still predominant
within the general management literature, the embedded view repre­
sents a more holistic perspective on sustainability, emphasising the
interrelatedness of the three dimensions. The embedded model follows a
“logic of existential dependency” (Marcus et al., 2010, p. 423), wherein
businesses are a part of and dependent on society, which itself is part of
and dependent on the natural environment. The environmental
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960
dimension constitutes the natural boundary and earthly limitations
within which society and businesses can operate (Steffen et al., 2015).
Every action within the business dimension may affect the social and
environmental dimensions, contributing to social well-being or causing
societal harm (Marcus et al., 2010).
Accordingly, the Global Reporting Initiative (2002) argues that “the
social dimension of sustainability concerns an organization’s impacts on
the social systems within which it operates” (p. 51). Labuschagne et al.
(2005) expanded this by including “the company’s relationship with its
various stakeholders” (p. 378) in their definition of social sustainability.
Missimer et al. (2017b, 2017a) approached social sustainability from a
systems perspective and identified “trust, common meaning, diversity,
capacity for learning and capacity for self-organization” (2017b, p. 38)
as essential elements for continuously meeting the needs of the in­
dividuals within a social system. Within the discourse on sustainability,
the social dimension is particularly debated. Not only does the assess­
ment and measurability of social aspects seem more difficult compared
to traditional evaluations based on environmental and financial in­
dicators (Presley et al., 2007) but the respective normative stance also
plays a strong role in the evaluation process (Carroll, 1979; Gold and
Schleper, 2017; Missimer et al., 2017a).
This paper aims to identify the elements of social sustainability
deemed relevant for a successful transformation towards a circular
economy. Thereby, both organisational (non)action and the inter­
linkages between internal and external stakeholders are considered
because both organisations and their stakeholders are to be seen as an
integral part of society on which corporate (non)action invariably will
have an impact.
2.2. Circular economy and social sustainability
A circular economy has the potential to radically transform the
current economic system towards sustainable development by deceler­
ating and closing resource flows and extending product life cycles by
emphasising reuse and recyclability (Bocken et al., 2016). Schröder et al.
(2019) highlighted the contribution of circular economy practices to the
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Decisively
beyond mere recycling, a circular economy includes, amongst others,
reduced material inputs and the substitution of primary resources to
mitigate adverse environmental impacts (Mayer et al., 2019; Zink and
Geyer, 2019). The circular economy concept thereby applies to different
levels of analysis (Bruel et al., 2019). This current research follows
Kirchherr et al.’s (2017) definition of a circular economy, describing
“[…] an economic system that is based on business models which
replace the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, alternatively reusing,
recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and con­
sumption processes, thus operating at the micro level (products, com­
panies, customers), meso level (eco-industrial parks) and macro level
(city, region, nation and beyond), with the aim to accomplish sustain­
able development, which implies creating environmental quality, eco­
nomic prosperity and social equity, to the benefit of current and future
generations” (pp. 224–225).
Circular economy is an umbrella concept encompassing a variety of
research streams and schools of thought in the context of waste and
resource management (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017; Homrich et al.,
2018). The relationship between circular economy and sustainability is
varyingly perceived as a precondition, benefit, or trade-off (Geissdoerfer
et al., 2017). In this context, Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) pointed to a
simplistic environmental stance and an underrepresented social
dimension in circular economy literature. The social dimension of sus­
tainability becomes especially relevant within the circular economy
context due to the need for close cooperation and interdependence be­
tween multiple stakeholders beyond traditional supply chain or network
relationships (Korhonen et al., 2018; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2019; Millar
et al., 2019).
Thus far, there has been little consideration of the social dimension
A. Mies and S. Gold
in the broader circular economy context (e.g. Kirchherr et al., 2017;
Schröder et al., 2020). Clube and Tennant (2020) investigated the
embedded consideration of human needs within seminal texts on cir­
cular economy-related concepts, such as Blue Economy,
Cradle-to-Cradle, Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development,
and the Performance Economy, and found that these concepts’ original
ideas incorporated certain satisfiers of human needs, which seem to have
become lost in the process of practical implementation. Sarkis et al.
(2010), building on the framework addressed by Labuschagne et al.
(2005), proposed an encompassing overview of social sustainability is­
sues in reverse logistics. Within the closed-loop supply chain discourse,
few studies have focussed specifically on the social dimension; they have
predominantly argued from an instrumental viewpoint, addressing job
creation (Pedram et al., 2017), workers’ safety (Devika et al., 2014) or
manufacturers’ recycling intentions (Panda et al., 2017) as indicators for
social sustainability. Even though sustainability is “at the heart of in­
dustrial ecology” (Ehrenfeld, 2007, p. 76), the social dimension is barely
addressed in the industrial ecology discourse (Hoffman, 2003), which
predominantly focuses on impact assessments, such as life cycle
assessment (LCA) tools, with a prevailing environmental and economic
focus (Ehrenfeld, 2007). Despite the availability of equivalent social
impact assessment tools, i.e. social LCA (SLCA) (Benoît and Mazijn,
2009) or socio-organisational LCA (SOLCA) (Martínez-Blanco et al.,
2015), these often focus on worker- and health-related aspects and omit
other social issues that affect multiple actors along the value-chain
(Kühnen and Hahn, 2017).
Various circularity indicator frameworks have been proposed to
quantify the circularity and sustainability of circular economy-related
projects; however, indicators of the social dimension are generally ab­
sent here as well (Corona et al., 2019; Saidani et al., 2019). Schröder
et al. (2020) highlighted the underexplored social aspects in circular
economy research and proposed integration with the human develop­
ment index, adding the human sphere and focusing on social equity as an
integral part of the circular economy concept. Moreau et al. (2017)
suggested integrating principles of the social and solidarity economy
into the circular economy concept to transform institutional conditions
towards an inclusive economy, addressing social and environmental
goals. Padilla-Rivera et al. (2020) reviewed the literature on social as­
pects in the circular economy and identified employment, health and
safety and participation as the most frequently addressed topics. Jab­
bour et al. (2019) explored the human side of circular economy business
models by linking circular economy with green human resource man­
agement. Inigo and Blok (2019) called for a more socio-ethical approach
to circular economy by adhering to the principles of responsible research
and innovation (i.e. anticipating unintended consequences of a circular
economy and embracing stakeholder participation).
There have been recent calls for more intimate integration of the
social dimension into the circular economy (e.g. Bruel et al., 2019; Merli
et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2017), as it otherwise cannot live up to its
potential of contributing to sustainable development, creating social
equity and representing an alternative, holistically sustainable economic
system (Kirchherr et al., 2017). This current paper strives to support this
integration and the consideration of social issues related to various actor
groups.
3. Research method
This research followed a two-step research design: first, a systematic
literature review with qualitative content analysis was conducted to
explore the understanding of the social dimension in the circular econ­
omy discourse; second, causal loop diagrams were developed to map the
respective interlinkages and identify the most relevant parameters for
spurring transformation.
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960
3.1. Systematic literature review
A systematic literature review aims to illustrate the state of research
and scientific discourse within a certain field of analysis. It helps to
identify recurring phenomena, common understandings and research
gaps and thus ultimately contributes to theory development (Tranfield
et al., 2003). As a first step, a systematic literature review with quali­
tative content analysis based on Fink (2020) and Mayring (2003) was
conducted (see Fig. 1), following a four-step-research process: material
collection, descriptive analysis, category selection and material
evaluation.
The material collection for the review was conducted in December
2017, based on a systematic keyword search in the comprehensive
literature Web of Science database, which includes the title, abstract and
keywords of English language, peer-reviewed journal articles. The
search strings and the inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in
Table 1. For comprehensively mapping the social dimension in circular
economy research, adjacent or synonymous research fields were
included: industrial ecology (IE), industrial symbiosis (IS) and eco-
industrial park (EIP), as conceptual antecedents of circular economy
and inter-organisational exchange; the cradle-to-cradle design (C2C)
framework, as it builds on the IE concept of industrial metabolism,
targeting product circularity; and reverse logistics (RL) and closed-loop
supply chains (CLSC), as equivalents and contributors to circular econ­
omy from a logistics and supply chain perspective. These concepts
represent the broader circular economy discourse, as they share major
circular economy principles, such as closing, slowing and prolonging
material and nutrient cycles within close inter-organisational collabo­
ration (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Homrich et al., 2018; Murray et al.,
2017). Deliberately, rather broad social-related keywords were chosen
(see Table 1) to uphold an exploratory approach to the social dimension
and prevent the results from skewing towards particular categories or
stakeholder groups. Both sustainability and circular economy are topics
of transdisciplinary science and thus require a transdisciplinary research
perspective (Bruel et al., 2019; Lang et al., 2012; Posch et al., 2011). The
initial outcome of 3029 articles was refined by research area (see Fig. 1),
excluding only areas with low relevance potential (e.g. sports, medicine,
physics). Using content-related inclusion and exclusion criteria (see
Table 1), the remaining 1136 articles were scanned and refined to a final
sample of 170 articles. This comparatively small sample underlined the
stated underrepresentation of the social dimension in the circular
economy discourse. The descriptive analysis of the data sample is pro­
vided in Appendix A.
The category selection was informed by social concerns found in the
literature and related frameworks, namely, those of Benoît and Mazijn
(2009); Kühnen and Hahn (2017); Labuschagne et al. (2005). These
initial deductive codes were complemented and refined by inductive
open coding to identify further relevant social categories (Timmermans
and Tavory, 2012). The identification of the social aspects mainly based
on explicit and implicit denominations as ‘social dimension’ by the
respective authors.
The material evaluation was conducted with qualitative content
analysis supported by MAXQDA, a programme for mixed methods and
qualitative data analysis. The identified social aspects were classified
according to groups of actors addressed and synthesised into 23 parent
categories, entailing further—sometimes actor-specific—sub-elements
of social sustainability. These elements form the basis for the causal loop
diagrams explained in the next section. Detailed descriptions of the
identified social aspects in the circular economy discourse are provided
as supplementary information (see Appendix B).
A second verifying review was carried out in May 2021 to validate
the original review. This review included peer-reviewed journal articles
published between 2018 and 2021 that had ‘circular economy’” in the
title, abstract or keywords and at least one of the previous social-related
keywords (see Table 1) in the title. The resulting 123 articles were
scanned for relevance, and 80 articles were identified and analysed in
A. Mies and S. Gold Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960

Fig. 1. Illustration of the research process, based on Fink (2020) and Mayring (2003).

arrow (effect) changes when the variable at the arrow’s tail (cause)
Table 1
changes. A positive linkage (+) indicates a change in the same direc­
Details of material collection: search string and inclusion and exclusion criteria.
tion,1 while a negative linkage (− ) points to a change in the opposite
Search string Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria direction2 (Sterman, 2000). The resulting causal structure of the model
circular economy-related Articles considered Articles were excluded helps explain the dynamic behaviour of the system (Lane, 2008; Senge,
keywords: as relevant included when … 1990).
“Circular Econom*” OR … ⨯ social and circular After identifying the social aspects relevant to the circular economy,
“Industrial Ecology” OR ✓ a direct reference economy aspects did not
“Industrial Symbiosis” OR to social aspects relate to each other, or
as part of the above-described qualitative content analysis, the CLD
“Industrial Ecosystem*” OR ✓ in the direct ⨯ social and circular technique was applied to map these social aspects and visualise their
“Eco Industrial Park*” OR context of circular economy aspects were interrelations and interdependencies in a conceptual system model. As
“closed-loop” OR “reverse economy keywords, mentioned outside the the social elements had mainly been addressed in isolation, the CLD
logistic*” OR “Cradle-to- and main body (i.e. findings,
technique enabled the integration of knowledge from the multifaceted
cradle” ✓ within the main discussion, conclusion)
social-related keywords: body of the article. and without close relation circular economy discourse and revealed leverage points for organisa­
“social*” OR “human*” OR to the actual research. tions and governments to further advance the transformation of today’s
“societ*” OR “ethic*” linear economy towards a holistically sustainable circular economy by
strengthening the focus on the social dimension (Meadows, 1999; Senge,
1990). The CLDs build on literature and logical reasoning derived from
more detail while following the previous content analysis procedure.
discussions between the authors and fellow researchers (Laurenti et al.,
The analysis of the supplementary material confirmed the previous
2016).
findings and did not result in new categories.

3.2. Causal loop diagram

The causal loop diagram (CLD) analysis technique builds on systems
thinking and is a powerful tool to capture mental models and feedback
structures of a system (Forrester, 1961; Richmond, 1993). It helps to
qualitatively explore various elements of a system and visualise the
cause-and-effect relations between these variables. The variables in a
CLD are connected by arrows, which denote their causal relationships.
The polarity of the arrows signifies how the variable at the tip of the
1
A change in the same direction, indicated by a positive polarity signifies,
that “if the cause increases, the effect increases above what it would otherwise
have been; and if the cause decreases, the effect decreases below what it would
otherwise have been” (Sterman, 2000, p. 139).
2
A change in the opposite direction, indicated by a negative polarity implies,
that “if the cause increases, the effect decreases below what it would otherwise
have been, and if the cause decreases, the effect increases above what it would
otherwise have been” (Sterman, 2000, p. 139).

4
A. Mies and S. Gold
3.3. Quality of research
To ensure high levels of validity, the initial coding framework was
based on existing conceptualisations, with subsequent inductive re­
finements when applicable. The final coding framework with underlying
definitions is provided as supplementary information (see Appendix B).
The systematic research design, with clear definitions of the research
process and coding rules and the resulting categories, further facilitated
the transparency and replicability of the research process (Mayring,
2003; Seuring and Gold, 2012). Iterative and recursive coding loops and
revisions of the coded material contributed to the rigour and reliability
of the analysis. A subsequent verifying literature review covering the
2018–2021 period added validity to the categorical system, which
served as an input to the CLDs. Regular discussions with fellow re­
searchers regarding the coding framework and the CLDs and pre­
sentations of the preliminary findings at research conferences were
aimed at increasing internal validity. The interlinkages of the identified
social aspects within the CLDs rely primarily on corresponding text
passages. Nevertheless, a certain subjective bias within the authors’
logical reasoning cannot be ruled out. The identified social aspects are
extensive but not exhaustive. They are naturally limited by the selected
search strings and databases.
3.4. Circular economy-level perspectives and thematic priorities
The circular economy concept applies to three levels of imple­
mentation (Kirchherr et al., 2017), all of which were represented in the
sample (see Table 2). Articles assigned to the micro level were mainly
built on empirical research and focused on product design, end-of-life
strategies or consumer-related social aspects, which have rarely been
addressed by other circular economy-perspectives. The meso level was
represented by about half of the sample, which was subdivided for more
detailed insights. The subcategory ‘meso_IS/EIP’ comprised some con­
ceptual but mainly empirical articles on IS relationships or EIP-related
business interactions, focusing on network designs or influencing vari­
ables for the establishment of circular networks. The subcategory
‘meso_SC’ contained mainly analytical and some empirical articles that
shed a specific supply chain-focus on circular economy, for example, the
development of (optimal) circular supply chains and management
strategies, or linked the social perspective to established concepts (e.g.
RL, CLSC, etc.). It predominantly addressed worker-related social as­
pects and internal organisational processes, such as corporate social
responsibility measures and compliance. Articles with a macro-level
perspective predominantly explored waste and resource management
policies or examined the sustainability performance of regional (27%),
citywide (24%) or industry-wide (20%) circular economy implementa­
tion practices. Here, the predominant focus was on social aspects of the
local community and (informal) workers. All remaining articles were
grouped as ‘miscellaneous’, the smallest group within the sample. These
primarily built on literature reviews or conceptual approaches, consid­
ering the circular economy concept as a whole, such as identifying
conceptual barriers and drivers and addressing social concerns in the
context of a general society.
4. Mapping the social dimension of the circular economy
discourse
The circular economy relies on the close cooperation of various ac­
tors. The identified elements of social sustainability thus relate to
different interconnected actor groups. The following frameworks
explore the causal relationships between the identified social elements,
unveiling central leverage points and major interlinkages between both
social aspects and actor groups. To maintain the readability of the
models, actor-group interlinkages are not depicted in each CLD. Certain
thematic overlaps between the different actor groups are addressed in
the subsequent sections and in the discussion (see also Table 3). Cross-
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960
actor elements represented in more than one CLD are labelled by capi­
tal letters for better identification, i.e. infrastructure (A), employment
generation (B) and education measures (C). The identified social ele­
ments are within different actors’ scopes of action: elements that can be
managed by the focal organisation are marked in black in the CLDs,
those exclusively in the hands of the respective actor are in green and
elements of governmental concern are in orange. All other elements in
the blue font colour are influenced by various actors.
4.1. Internal organisational processes
Job creation, commitment to corporate social responsibility and
compliance with standards and regulations were the predominantly
mentioned social aspects associated with the focal organisation (see
Fig. 2). Job creation constituted the most frequently addressed issue in
the overall sample (cited by more than one-third of the sample) and was
often used as the sole social indicator (e.g. Aguilar-Hernandez et al.,
2021; Mota et al., 2015; Okkonen, 2008).
(1) Organisational and managerial commitment towards integrating
circular economy practices requires a certain level of (2) managerial
sustainability awareness and understanding of circular economy (Qu
et al., 2015). “If managers are either aware of the IS philosophy or the
existence of industrial synergy practices in their own industrial sector,
they are more likely to have a positive attitude towards adopting such a
solution for their own industrial needs” (Ghali et al., 2017, p. 457). The
adoption of circular economy-related processes often requires a (3)
change in organisational culture and corporate strategy (Andiç et al.,
2012; Gorane and Kant, 2016). The availability of (4) external and in­
ternal infrastructure, including the institutional capacity for develop­
ment, affects organisational social sustainability processes and related
organisational cultural transformation (Adams and Ghaly, 2006), which
ultimately influences organisational opportunities for (5) job creation
and continuation (Sarkis et al., 2010).
Organisational commitment is also the basis for recognising (6)
corporate social responsibility (CSR). Organisational responsibility in­
cludes various aspects. On the one hand, it involves acknowledging an
employer’s responsibility (Clube and Tennant, 2020), including
ensuring decent employment practices and working conditions. For
example, workers’ health and safety measures and job satisfaction were
mentioned to improve significantly once organisational social perfor­
mance improves (Younis et al., 2016, see also Section 4.2). Employee
well-being also benefits an organisation’s societal image and reputation
(Lu et al., 2020). Organisational responsibility measurements, on the
other hand, imply an ethical obligation to stakeholders by providing
social value and stakeholder well-being.
Ensuring a positive impact on stakeholders and the social environ­
ment (e.g. the local community, see Section 4.4)—for example, through
CSR initiatives—drives customer value preferences (Afshari et al., 2020,
see also Section 4.3) and hence feeds back on organisational perfor­
mance (Gong et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2020). “Social responsibility is an
incentive to act together among actors in the supply chain to create
additional revenue and benefits” (Sudarto et al., 2016, p. 30). Conse­
quently, CSR measures are also associated with developing (7)
multi-stakeholder collaborations, such as cooperation with govern­
mental or non-governmental organisations, and involving customers or
the local community (Boons and Spekkink, 2012; Niang et al., 2021).
Symbiotic collaborations not only affect public relations and an orga­
nisation’s reputation; they also have a reinforcing effect on organisa­
tional and societal transformation, as they require an open and reflective
innovation and decision-making processes and at the same time create
promoters for a circular economy (Hosseini-Motlagh et al., 2020; Inigo
and Blok, 2019; Rovanto and Bask, 2021).
The recognition of social responsibility moreover interrelates with
the (8) adoption of international standards and compliance with regu­
latory requirements, e.g. health and safety (Jacques and Guimarães,
2012) or human rights (Nikolaou et al., 2013). The extent of the
A. Mies and S. Gold
Table 2
Distribution of social issues by actor and circular economy-level perspective.
enforcement of social and environmental standards depends on mana­
gerial conviction and organisational commitment, especially when
governmental structures are weak and economic pressures are high
(Manhart, 2011), and affect organisational reputation and legitimacy
(Hickle, 2017). However, the organisational implementation of circular
economy-related measures can have both positive and negative effects
on a (9) corporation’s image and reputation. Although adherence to low
environmental impacts and good working conditions is usually
perceived positively (Annarelli et al., 2016; Lu et al., 2020), committing
to remanufacturing can also create a negative image for some customers
(Seitz, 2007). Evolving attitudes towards a circular economy in society
and industry mutually drive organisational transformation and shape
consumers’ preferences, including the public perception of a corpora­
tion’s image and reputation (Afshari et al., 2020; Gong et al., 2021).
Both internal and external (10) educational measures on sustainability
and circular economy, directed at the public, customers and trading
partners, were thus frequently highlighted as leverages for successful
circular economy implementation and improvements in demand and
customers’ end-of-life behaviour (Hosseini-Motlagh et al., 2020; Petry
et al., 2011; Rashid et al., 2013).
4.2. Workers
Workers’ health and safety, access to education and training, and
general working conditions and employment practices (i.e. formality
and stability) were the most often-mentioned social factors in the
workers’3 domain (see Fig. 3). Concerns regarding social justice,
equality and including marginalised social groups were also frequently
addressed.
The availability of (1) contractual agreements, including regulated
working hours, fair wages and practices of decent work, constitute a
central leverage point for social sustainability in the circular economy. It
entails organisational compliance with (2) workers’ human rights,
including freedom from exploitation or abuse, and freedom of associa­
tion and collective bargaining (Ghisolfi et al., 2017; Nikolaou et al.,
2013). Decent employment practices, including employment stability
and formality, were especially emphasised in articles addressing the
work realities of scavengers and informal workers. “Once formalized,
waste pickers can demand rights, increase the amount of collected
3 and workers’ well-being.
‘Workers’ represent the internal human resources within a focal organisa­
tion, as well as the informal workers (e.g. scavengers) who play an important
role in closing resource loops, especially in countries without official waste
management systems.
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960
material, and raise their prices, in contrast to informal workers who lack
bargaining power or do not have access to a physical structure to store
their collected materials, forcing them to accept the prices imposed by
the market” (Ghisolfi et al., 2017, p. 15).
Decent employment practices and contractual agreements shape
overall (3) working conditions and job quality. “While most formal e-
recycling facilities show a particular concern for worker protection […],
workers involved in informal e-recycling activities are generally un­
trained and not equipped with personal protective equipment” (Bakhiyi
et al., 2018, p. 178). Accordingly, the availability of adequate (3a) work
infrastructure and equipment, which ease labour intensity and the
impact on human resources (Brix-Asala et al., 2016; Rebehy et al.,
2017), the provision of adequate (3b) education and training (Gall et al.,
2020; Jabbour et al., 2019) and assurance of (3c) workers’ health and
safety (Bui et al., 2020) contribute significantly to the conditions and
quality of work. The interplay of infrastructure and education, such as
information on the correct use of provided tools (Brix-Asala et al., 2016),
and disciplinary practices, e.g. if disobedience occurs (Sarkis et al.,
2010), thereby have a reinforcing effect on workers’ health and safety.
The (4) relationship between workers and management is formed by
both (4a) disciplinary practices (i.e. expected obedience) (Gorane and
Kant, 2016) and (4b) motivation and recognition of employees, e.g. in
the form of decent working conditions and wages (Clube and Tennant,
2020; Guarnieri et al., 2016), supplementary (4c) social or financial
benefits and incentives (Gall et al., 2020), or equal career opportunities
(Govindan et al., 2016). Awareness-raising and empowerment measures
further contribute to teamwork, mutual trust and loyalty towards the
organisation (Gall et al., 2020; Jabbour et al., 2019). Societal recogni­
tion of workers’ contributions to a circular economy and the environ­
ment, combined with organisational respect for workers’ human rights
and appropriate working conditions (Iacovidou et al., 2017), influence
(5) social justice, equality and inclusion among the workforce and
subsequently ensure (6) workers’ well-being and job satisfaction (Gall
et al., 2020; Petry et al., 2011).
It becomes apparent that most employee-related social issues are at
the discretion of the organisation, except for workers’ job satisfaction
and relations with management and the colleagues. Contractual ar­
rangements, work conditions (including work infrastructure, health and
safety) and the recognition and motivation of workers (including ben­
efits and education) can be considered as main leverage points that
contribute to social justice (including human rights-related concerns)
A. Mies and S. Gold
Table 3
Cross-actor matrix of the identified social aspects.
4.3. Customers
The main issues addressed in the customer4 domain were consumer
behaviour (i.e. consumption choices and end-of-life behaviour) and the
perceived benefits of recycling (see Fig. 4). Unlike the worker domain,
only a few aspects of the identified consumer-related social issues were
within the company’s operational scope. Predominantly, these involved
ensuring consumers’ (1a) health and safety, (1b) privacy and (1c)
transparent information to meet (2) customer needs and expectations,
and ultimately reach (3) customer satisfaction (Nikolaou et al., 2013;
Yuan et al., 2016).
Customer satisfaction not only positively affects organisational
reputation and thus contributes to overall firm performance (see Section
4.1), but it also correlates with (4) customer loyalty and long-lasting
customer-business relationships (Braungart et al., 2007; Gorane and
4 et al., 2016). Lack of customer acceptance was repeatedly emphasised as
‘Consumer’ and ‘customer’ were regarded synonymously.
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960
Kant, 2016). Another driver for positive customer–business relation­
ships and meeting customer demands is the (4a) involvement of cus­
tomers in circular economy ventures (Annarelli et al., 2016; Hobson,
2020). Encouraging customer participation can further promote other
customers’ or companies’ engagement (Knickmeyer, 2020; Rovanto and
Bask, 2021) and raise awareness of circular economy-related issues
(Inigo and Blok, 2019).
Transparent information on, for example, organisational circular
economy measures and other (5) educational initiatives are key factors
for increasing both customer (5a) awareness and eventual acceptance of
circular economy practices (Sudarto et al., 2016). Through improved
awareness and confidence in the effectiveness of both corporate circular
economy measures and related customer behaviour (Laurenti et al.,
2015; Palacios-Gonzalez and Chamorro-Mera, 2020), companies should
strive to “eradicate the stigma attached to the use of salvaged materials
among clients and designers” (Chileshe et al., 2016, p. 150) and stim­
ulate (5b) attitude and (5c) acceptance of a circular economy (Yuan
A. Mies and S. Gold
Fig. 2. Causal loop diagram of organisation-related social aspects in the cir­
cular economy (black: aspects within the discretion of the company; blue: dependent
on various parties, underlined: most frequently mentioned aspects).
a necessary and current barrier for a (5d) transformational change in
corporate culture and consumer behaviour and lifestyle towards circular
economy principles (Annarelli et al., 2016; Rebehy et al., 2017).
Information and awareness of the negative effects of linear con­
sumption and production patterns can guide (6) consumer behaviour, e.
g. their consumption choices (Hobson, 2020) and decrease the
discrepancy between awareness and action (van der Leer et al., 2018).
However, circular economy awareness and the intention to act accord­
ing to circular economy principles may not automatically translate into
their respective behaviours. Consumption patterns and end-of-life re­
sponsibility depend not only on consumer awareness but also on a
certain sensitivity to culturally acceptable behaviour (Jena and Sarmah,
2015). Perceived (7) responsibility and social norms, and the expected
(8a) obstacles or (8b) benefits of action, strongly influence both inten­
ded and actual behaviours (Knickmeyer, 2020; Lehtokunnas et al.,
2020). Consumers are held responsible not only for their lifestyle
Fig. 3. Causal loop diagram of worker-related social aspects in the circular economy (black: aspects within the discretion of the company, blue: dependent on various
parties, underlined: most frequently mentioned aspects).
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960
choices but also for the adequate end-of-life treatment of products (e.g.
recycling). “The consumer is carrying out his or her social responsibility
.. by paying the premium price to support recycling activity and
returning the used products to the collection facility. So there is con­
sumer involvement here” (Sudarto et al., 2016, p. 40).
Consumption and recycling responsibility are often associated with a
sense of duty, e.g. a moral obligation to recycle (Knickmeyer, 2020).
“While the efforts expended by households are not compensated for in
monetary terms they are willing to do so on the basis of societal benefit”
(O’Reilly & Kumar, 2016, p. 503). Thereby, the felt responsibility and
moral norm not only coin consumers’ commitment and attitude towards
recycling and circular products but also affect consumers’ needs and
expectations (e.g. for product recyclability) and their (8) willingness to
sacrifice, e.g. returning the product at its end-of-life to a recycling fa­
cility (Jalil et al., 2016; O’Reilly & Kumar, 2016).
The previously described divergence between consumers’ intention
to act, coined by awareness and perceived responsibility (Yuan et al.,
2016) and consumers’ actual behaviour, which is strongly influenced by
moral norms and one’s willingness to sacrifice, constitute the so-called
intention–behaviour gap (Tong et al., 2018). One way to mitigate this
gap is to highlight the (8a) benefits of acting, such as offering rewards
for customer returns of recyclables (Hong et al., 2014) and adjusting the
(perceived) (8b) barriers to acting, e.g. by ensuring the availability and
accessibility of information and adequate recycling infrastructure (Jalil
et al., 2016; Knickmeyer, 2020). Perceived benefits, such as lower costs
or anticipated positive emotions (Dixit and Badgaiyan, 2016), were
mentioned more frequently in the sample than perceived obstacles, such
as higher customer costs or “doubts about quality and performance of
the new products after exchange” (Jena and Sarmah, 2015, p. 826).
Improved accessibility and information on circular economy reduce
the barriers to recycling and increase overall recycling motivation,
which leads to an increase in customer demand for circular economy
processes and induces further improvements in availability and (recy­
cling) infrastructure. “Education and advertisement are the biggest
source for returning of used products” (Jena and Sarmah, 2015, p. 826).
In contrast, weak government policies (see Section 4.5), lack of regu­
lation and insufficient information on product returns negatively affect
customers’ attitudes and reduce their motivation to act (O’Reilly &
Kumar, 2016). Hence, the need for customer incentives, education and
A. Mies and S. Gold Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960

Fig. 4. Causal loop diagram of customer-related social aspects in the circular economy (black: aspects within the discretion of the company, green: aspects within the
customers’ scope of action, blue: dependent on various parties, underlined: most frequently mentioned aspects).

awareness-raising efforts were emphasised as leverage points for both
governments and organisations to close material circles, best in coop­
eration (Jena and Sarmah, 2015).
4.4. Local community
The most frequently mentioned social issues related to the local
community were community development, community integration and
participation in circular economy-related projects, community educa­
tion, community well-being and local employment opportunities (see
Fig. 5).
Local community (1) involvement is deemed critical for the overall
success of circular economy projects (Elabras Veiga and Magrini, 2009;
Inigo and Blok, 2019; Winans et al., 2017). Opportunities to participate,
for example, in the early planning process of circular economy projects
promote (1a) local empowerment (Schröder et al., 2020) and influence
the (1b) acceptance of circular economy measures in the community and
coin the local (1c) commitment and attitude towards a circular economy
(Hewes and Lyons, 2008; Swagemakers et al., 2018). Community
involvement also enhances (2) social inclusion and equity within com­
munities (Bansal and McKnight, 2009). In particular, the inclusion of
marginalised groups, such as waste pickers, influences (2a) social
cohesion among community members (Rebehy et al., 2017).
Social embeddedness and solidarity eventually lead to greater (2b)
community satisfaction and well-being and contribute to (2c) positive
relationships with adjacent companies and municipal governments,
which has an additional positive effect on community commitment
(Knickmeyer, 2020; Lekan and Rogers, 2020). “Community consensus

Fig. 5. Causal loop diagram of local community-related social aspects in the circular economy (black: aspects within the discretion of the company, green: aspects within
the communities’ scope of action, orange: elements of governmental concern, blue: dependent on various parties, underlined: most frequently mentioned aspects).

9
A. Mies and S. Gold
must be also managed in the long-term development of the IS because it
is essential to building a culture for sustainable local development”
(Simboli et al., 2015, p. 70). Participation opportunities and (2d) respect
for local culture and heritage (O’Reilly & Kumar, 2016) preserve
regional (3a) touristic value and improve the community’s livelihood,
including (3b) economic security and welfare (Bui et al., 2020; Ferrer
et al., 2012).
(4) Municipal involvement, in the forms of support for circular
economy measures, consistent policies and effective communication,
additionally plays an important role in community participation
(Knickmeyer, 2020; Petrescu et al., 2016) and shapes social inclusion,
(3) regional development and community awareness building (Guar­
nieri et al., 2016; Hewes and Lyons, 2008). Governmental and
non-governmental (5) education and awareness-raising measures also
contribute to local empowerment (Schröder et al., 2020; Taddeo et al.,
2012) and strengthen social cohesion (Ferrer et al., 2012; Gall et al.,
2020). “In urban environments, where community cohesion may be
lacking, educational and information dissemination programmes can aid
the acceptance of resource recovery technologies and processes.”
(Iacovidou et al., 2017, p. 926).
Improved (5a) understanding of the circular economy thus adds to
local acceptance and engagement and further guides the community’s
(5b) needs and expectations (Ferrer et al., 2012; Petry et al., 2011).
Considering stakeholders’ needs promotes their acceptance of circular
economy projects (Taddeo et al., 2012) and ensures environmental im­
provements, thus reducing negative impacts on the community (Baas,
2011). Emphasising a community’s (6) social benefits, including (6a)
access to resources and improved infrastructure, (6b) healthy and safe
living conditions and (6c) transparency and information, promotes
acceptance and contributes to overall community development (Adams
and Ghaly, 2006; Vahidzadeh et al., 2021). Education measures also
enhance local employability, which feeds back to the (3c) regional
employment rate (Clube and Tennant, 2020; Govindan et al., 2016).
Providing the local population access to employment strengthens eco­
nomic welfare and regional poverty alleviation (Afshari et al., 2020;
Brix-Asala et al., 2016) and contributes to community well-being and
regional development (Adams and Ghaly, 2006). The creation of for­
malised local employment (see also Sections 4.1 and 4.2) and promotion
of local participation thus constitute central organisational leverage
points for improved local economic welfare, overall community
well-being and a positive community attitudes towards the organisation
and respective circular economy-related endeavours (Hoffman, 2003;
Iacovidou et al., 2017).
Fig. 6. Causal loop diagram of society-related social aspects in the circular economy (green: aspects within the societies’ scope of action, orange: elements of governmental
concern, blue: dependent on various parties, underlined: most frequently mentioned aspects).
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960
4.5. Society
On the societal level, commonly addressed themes included public
health and safety, social justice and socio-cultural capital (see Fig. 6).
Most prominently discussed, however, was the necessity for (1)
governmental involvement in regulative and financial incentives, i.e.
(green) taxes, credits or fines, and the provision of legislative and
operational support (Knickmeyer, 2020; Taddeo et al., 2012).
The discourse on the role of policy in the transformation to a circular
economy was driven by the recognition of (1a) governmental re­
sponsibility, for example, to invest in circular economy-related tech­
nologies, to introduce waste preventive measures and taxes (Diniz
Chaves et al., 2014; Geng et al., 2012; Stahel, 2013, see also Sections 4.1
and 4.3) or to ensure the societal inclusion of informal workers (Gui­
brunet et al., 2017, see Section 4.2). Concurrently, (1b) weak gover­
nance structures and inconsistent regulation were cited as impediments
to a circular economy transformation, such as obstructive waste defi­
nitions: “According to the law, waste is not a product, not a resource”
(Ezzat, 2016, p. 520). Likewise, insufficient state controls on corporate
compliance (see Section 4.1), a “lack of manpower with [the state
pollution control] board, excess work, poor infrastructure, political
pressure and corruption” (Gorane and Kant, 2016, p. 1094) were addi­
tional barriers mentioned. Government involvement is complex and can
have an aversive effect on a circular economy transformation if it is
lacking, or too much based on existing linear rationales (Hickle, 2017;
Hobson, 2016).
(2a) Public knowledge on circular economy-related issues and
recognition of a shared (2b) societal responsibility are the basis for (2)
public attitude, commitment and (3) participation (Dururu et al., 2015).
While weak government policies and insufficient information on, for
example, used product return processes induce a negative attitude to­
wards recycling (Jena and Sarmah, 2015; O’Reilly & Kumar, 2016, see
also Section 4.3), governmental and non-governmental (2c) education
and empowerment campaigns help to raise (2) public awareness, e.g. for
the benefits of recycling, and can thus initiate a change in the public’s
opinions and behaviours (Dixit and Badgaiyan, 2016; Laitinen et al.,
2020).
Active societal participation, combined with clear political goals, is
considered a necessary prerequisite for (4) societal transformation to­
wards a circular economy (Holmgren et al., 2020; Knickmeyer, 2020).
Both can further reduce (4a) social costs, which are often caused by
negative impacts on society (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017) or by con­
flicts between various stakeholders (Jung et al., 2013). The trade-off
between social costs and the perceived (5) positive impact of circular
A. Mies and S. Gold
economy-related processes drives (6) public acceptance (Iacovidou
et al., 2017). The social benefits of a circular economy are, for example,
(5a) social cohesion, (5b) physical and mental health and safety, civic
and political participation, education, and overall (5c) societal
well-being and life satisfaction. Both public acceptance and participa­
tion enhance (7) economic welfare and contribute to (8) social and
cultural capital (Iacovidou et al., 2017). The associated societal values
further shape social embeddedness and societal cohesion (Blomsma and
Brennan, 2017). (9) Social justice and equity significantly affect societal
development and the well-being of today’s and future generations
(Clube and Tennant, 2020; Kirchherr et al., 2017). Both are considered
necessary for long-term growth and economic welfare (Qu et al., 2015;
Sarkis et al., 2010), while (9a) economic inequalities have major adverse
effects on the aforementioned social benefits (Laurenti et al., 2016).
Improved economic welfare and public awareness further stir (10)
societal needs (e.g. for environmental protection) and incite (10a) public
pressure for positive change, such as better living conditions (Alaerts
et al., 2019; Hoffman, 2003). Public pressure not only passes on societal
demands to governmental and organisational institutions (Diniz Chaves
et al., 2014), it also shapes societal opinion and behaviour, e.g. towards
participating in recycling schemes (Eckelman et al., 2014). Policy
measures and public pressure have been cited as factors that ultimately
encourage companies to adopt circular economy practices (Chileshe
et al., 2016; Rashid et al., 2013) and further spur societal acceptance.
Governmental commitment, societal awareness (e.g. of the benefits of
circular economy-related measures) and improvements in social and
economic justice are leverage points for societal development and
transformation towards a circular economy (Ghisellini et al., 2016;
Iacovidou et al., 2017; Rashid et al., 2013).
5. Discussion
To obtain a truly sustainable alternative to the current economic
system, more attention needs to be paid to the social dimension of the
circular economy concept. After exploring the representation of the
social dimension within the scholarly circular economy discourse and
mapping its causal interrelations, this section highlights various
observed shortcomings regarding the coverage of social issues. Collab­
oration is emphasised as main facilitator of a circular economy. More­
over, key leverage points for spurring transformation towards a circular
economy that is comprehensively founded on all three sustainability
dimensions are identified and avenues for follow-up research are sug­
gested. Finally, the challenges of integrating social aspects into the cir­
cular economy concept are discussed by referring to problems of
operationalisation (i.e. indicators) and blurred boundaries between
sustainability dimensions, and the predominant instrumental approach
to circular economy, all of which represent a hurdle for stronger inte­
gration of social sustainability.
5.1. Coverage of social aspects
When comparing the different identified social elements, it is
noticeable that various aspects recurred across different actor groups,
while others were rather actor specific. All of the identified social as­
pects were integrated into a matrix to visualise their representation
across the actors (see Table 3). Some closely related categories were
pooled for this purpose. A detailed description of each category is pro­
vided in Appendix B. The symbols in the table indicate which issues were
discussed from which circular economy-level perspectives, providing an
overview of the distribution throughout the circular economy discourse.
The table also indicates whether the actor was merely portrayed as being
affected (passive) or with an ability to act (active).
The most frequently addressed social aspects in more than half of the
sample related to employment, education and awareness-raising, health
and safety, and government involvement. These were followed by
regional and organisational transformation, the provision of stakeholder
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960
benefits, and social justice and inclusion.
The current representation of the social dimension in the scholarly
discourse, however, also showed various shortcomings. First, it is
noticeable that only educational measures and relational concerns were
mentioned in the context of all actor groups, although the latter is from
slightly differing angles: workers’ motivation, discipline and loyalty, a
company’s reputation, customer loyalty, public pressure, and the re­
lationships between organisations and customers, the local community
or society in general. It is thus worth reflecting on which social aspects
were omitted in relation to each actor group, why this is the case and
which blanks are worth addressing.
For example, participation and stakeholder involvement, which are
one of the key elements of a circular economy, were frequently
addressed in the context of local and overall society, but there was little
discussion on the participation of customers or workers. While the
involvement of customers mainly addressed their participation in the
recycling process (e.g. Guarnieri et al., 2016), customers’ involvement
in the product or service development process can provide crucial in­
sights (e.g. Annarelli et al., 2016) and should therefore receive more
attention from both practitioners and scholars.
Worker participation in strategic or creative processes was also not
addressed, except in the context of freedom of association and collective
bargaining, which were also only referred to from articles with meso_SC
and macro-level perspectives. Merely Stindt (2017) observed that
allowing employees to choose the order of tasks themselves, “resulted in
increased motivation, a higher level of satisfaction and increased pro­
ductivity” (p.153). Similarly, workers’ needs and expectations, or social
embeddedness among workers, have barely been addressed as Gall et al.
(2020) and Jabbour et al. (2019) have pointed out. It may be argued that
workers’ needs and interests are covered on a general level by workers’
rights, contractual agreements and working conditions. Still, it is strik­
ing that no research zoomed into the specific needs or expectations of
workers. Future research should further explore how questions of social
embeddedness as well as workers’ needs and expectations beyond the
demand for stable and adequate working conditions may affect the
implementation of circularity in business.
Recurring references to ‘social responsibility’ indicate a perception
of a shared social or behavioural (e.g. recycling) responsibility among all
stakeholders. At the same time, this perception also entails the risk of
passing responsibility onto others in the sense that ‘it is not our re­
sponsibility but the responsibility of society, government, customers,
etc.’. It is furthermore striking that the workers’ or local community’s
responsibilities were barely addressed. Further research should look into
the questions of whether this implies that these stakeholder groups are
held less accountable, that is, that they are seen as ‘weak’ without the
capacity to act as change agents, or whether their responsibility is just
framed differently. Future research could also investigate which other
social aspects have been omitted or neglected in the research thus far
despite their potential relevance for specific actor groups or the trans­
formation of the entire system towards increased circularity.
Second, certain gaps within the different research perspectives are
noticeable. Based on the respective discourse foci, it is reasonable that
micro-level articles focus more on the concerns of customers and articles
with a macro perspective on the local community (see Table 2).
Nevertheless, scholars should pay attention that they do not miss out on
the social aspects of stakeholders other than their natural research focus,
such as customers and local community concerns in the meso_SC-level
discourse, or workers in the meso_IE or micro-level realm. Initially, it
seemed clear that issues such as health and safety, well-being, justice
and participation concern all stakeholders alike. A closer look revealed,
however, that not all actors are explicitly and equally considered by
different circular economy research perspectives. On a normative note,
successful and thorough circular economy implementation likely re­
quires the active integration and participation of all actors involved.
This leads to our third observation: there was a noticeable distinction
between actively or passively involved actor groups (see Table 3).
A. Mies and S. Gold
Workers, for example, were rather depicted as passive in contrast to
organisations being perceived as active and decisive. The argumentative
focus was often on organisations and society taking care of employees’
well-being. The local community was also viewed as rather passively
affected by the impact of organisational action, while, at the same time,
active awareness, acceptance, and commitment of the local community
were emphasised as contributing to the success of circular economy-
related initiatives. It was considered the organisation’s responsibility
to involve the local community for enhancing economic effectiveness of
circular economy projects. “Results […] showed that a lack of commu­
nity involvement influences industrial productivity and industrial sym­
biosis that in turn generates economic constraints and social disparities
between different regions in a country that inhibit the success of circular
economy-related initiatives” (Winans et al., 2017, p. 827). Future
research should take a reflective stance towards the questions of which
role—active or passive—is assigned to each stakeholder, whether this
role is justified and what effect it has on others and the overall success of
circular economy endeavours.
5.2. Collaboration
Collaboration among various partners is a central aspect of a circular
economy (e.g. Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2019; Millar et al., 2019). Especially
meso_IS/EIP literature investigated the preconditions for and facilitating
effects of network formation and coordinating processes. In line with
Missimer et al.’s (2017) approach to social sustainability, shared norms
and values, mutual trust and a long-term perspective—all of which are
features of collaboration—were considered crucial for network forma­
tion (Ashton and Bain, 2012; Boons and Spekkink, 2012). A certain
awareness of the circular economy concept and its benefits, willingness
to commit to mutual goals and consideration of the diverse needs and
expectations of the involved stakeholders were also emphasised as key
elements for circular network formation processes.
These are in line with the identified leverage points (see Section 4).
In particular, participation and regular social interaction within the
network—personally and professionally, formally and informally—were
highlighted as preconditions for collaborative approaches. As important
features of collaboration, the sharing of knowledge and infrastructure,
collaborative problem solving and project development were emphas­
ised. Future research could elaborate on the necessary and sufficient
conditions for network formation in a circular economy context, thus
contributing to the research stream of multi-stakeholder and cross-
sector collaborations.
5.3. Leverage points
In Section 4, various key elements that serve as leverage points for a
more thorough consideration of social sustainability in circular
economy-related projects are pointed out. Leverage points describe the
“right places in a system where small, well-focused actions can some­
times produce significant, enduring improvements” (Senge, 1990, p.
64). In the next section, the central leverage points and their interplay
between different actor groups are discussed. Education and
awareness-rising, participation and legislative support were identified
as overarching key levers for social sustainability progress in circular
economy-related projects.
Both contractual and actual working conditions were shown to be
key leverages for workers’ well-being and job satisfaction. Good work­
ing conditions include the provision of adequate equipment and infra­
structure, as well as the necessary training on how to use these facilities.
By educating and creating awareness of the benefits of their work,
workers will be more motivated and satisfied with their jobs. “Em­
ployees learned about the environmental gain that had been achieved
and were more proud than ever” (Petry et al., 2011, p. 92). Workplace
design and contractual agreements also relate to organisational social
commitment, which often depends on managerial understanding of
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960
sustainability (Ghali et al., 2017).
Organisational implementation of social and environmental stan­
dards and transformation towards a sustainable and more circular
business strategy promotes job creation and affects the organisation’s
image and reputation. Formalisation of previously informal scavengers
through the provision of fair employment contracts and working con­
ditions on the one hand and corresponding legislative regulation on the
other are additional managerial and policy levers that may further
promote recognition of scavengers’ societal contributions (Gall et al.,
2020; Guarnieri et al., 2016; Rebehy et al., 2017).
Providing education and enabling community participation are ways
to empower the inhabitants of a local community, which has a positive
effect on social cohesion and the inclusion of marginalised social groups
(e.g. scavengers). Education, awareness-raising and participation mea­
sures improve regional employability and the likelihood that circular
economy projects are supported by the local community, which is
conducive for both poverty alleviation and community development
(Elabras Veiga and Magrini, 2009).
Changing lifestyles, including customers’ buying and recycling be­
haviours, is seen as a key factor in closing material loops and pushing
manufacturers towards sustainable and circular production. Corporate
image, appropriate working conditions and transparent information on
products and production processes influence purchasing decisions as
much as guaranteeing consumers’ health, safety and privacy. Customer
education measures and improved societal awareness of recycling and
sustainability implications nudge societal moral norms towards recy­
cling and sustainable consumption. Purchasing and recycling behaviour
can be further supported by customer involvement (e.g. in product or
service development processes). Likewise, profound information on the
return process, availability of convenient return facilities and the pro­
vision of incentives for consumer product returns by organisations or
governments support recycling behaviour and, accordingly, the closing
of resource cycles (Knickmeyer, 2020).
On the societal level, public awareness of circular economy aspects
and the resulting environmental and societal benefits are key factors in
fostering public engagement and transforming society towards a holis­
tically sustainable circular economy. Improved awareness of societal
needs, growing public pressure and demand for participation drive
governments to establish adequate standards and regulations and drive
organisations to commit to sustainable and circular production. Both are
essential for the societal transformation towards better socio-
environmental and socio-economic performance.
In summary, it can be discerned that changes in organisational and
societal mindsets, accompanied by both internal and external education
and awareness campaigns and including various stakeholders in the
entire transformation process, are central elements for successfully
implementing a circular economy (Inigo and Blok, 2019; Petry et al.,
2011; Rashid et al., 2013). In line with various scholars, we argue that a
certain awareness of the circular economy concept and sustainability
issues is necessary for the transformation towards a sustainable circular
economy (e.g., Homrich et al., 2018; Horbach and Rammer, 2019). “It
will be crucial to establish synergies with SDG 4 (Quality education) to
build the skills and capacity required for scaling-up and replicating
circular economy practices” (Schröder et al., 2019, p. 16).
Our analysis showed that supporting legislation plays an important
role in pushing organisations towards implementing thoroughly sus­
tainable circular economy practices. It thereby supports Horbach and
Rammer’s (2019) request for encouraging but stringent regulation,
which drives organisations to adopt circular economy-related ap­
proaches. Based on their identification of a positive relationship be­
tween circular economy innovations and growth in sales and
employment, Horbach and Rammer deduced a positive effect on envi­
ronmental and social sustainability. Their equation of the social
dimension with employment is in line with the overall high represen­
tation of employment-related issues within our analysis. We consider
this narrow focus problematic.
A. Mies and S. Gold
5.4. All leads back to society: The blurred boundaries between social,
economic and environmental indicators
Regarding some of the identified social issues, it could be discussed
whether these suitably constitute the social sustainability dimension or
rather represent an economic indicator. Is consumers’ health and safety
a genuine aspect of social sustainability, or is it a fundamental concern
of product safety and organisational survival?
Job creation was the most frequently mentioned social aspect in the
reviewed sample, appearing in combination with other aspects, such as
workers’ health and safety and as a sole indicator: “… and [the] social (i.
e. employment) indicator includes new jobs generated” (Okkonen, 2008,
p. 327). While employment generation can have positive social effects,
such as decreasing regional poverty and fostering social inclusion
(Taddeo et al., 2012), its actual social sustainability impact depends on
the quality and design of a new workplace and its objectives. The quality
of the jobs generated, however, was rarely taken into account in the
respective analyses. Is job creation thus a sufficient social sustainability
indicator? The same applies to the ambiguity between the social and
environmental dimensions, such as some human health indicators that
measure the human toxicity of environmental pollution (e.g. Stindt,
2017; Valenzuela-Venegas et al., 2016). Is human toxicity a social or
environmental indicator? Are social costs (of carbon emissions) a suit­
able measurement for social impacts (e.g. Edalatpour et al., 2018;
Rathore and Sarmah, 2020) or rather an economic or environmental
indicator?
Based on the embedded view on sustainability, every organisational
activity or inactivity has a direct or indirect effect on society and vice
versa (Marcus et al., 2010; Wettstein, 2010). “If business is part of so­
ciety, then business outcomes are societal outcomes […] it seems inac­
curate to frame financial performance as something apart from overall
social performance” (Marcus et al., 2010, p. 428). Many business-related
interactions can and therefore should be viewed as both a core business
objective and a social sustainability issue. Customer satisfaction can be
seen as a core business objective in relation to the ability to sell a product
or service. At the same time, customers are part of society and thus
represent societal opinion, needs and well-being, ergo core social sus­
tainability objectives. Carroll (1979) called this “economic social re­
sponsibility”. The boundaries between the dimensions of sustainability
overlap and are thus, to some extent, arbitrary (Marcus et al., 2010;
Murphy, 2012), which makes the clear-cut differentiation of pure social
issues difficult but no less relevant.
We consent with Missimer et al. (2017a), who argued that vague and
pluralistic definitions of sustainability, especially of the social dimen­
sion addressed here, are not helpful in its implementation. In line with
the previously mentioned example of Horbach and Rammer (2019),
various authors in the data sample have claimed that the social
dimension of sustainability was considered, but, ultimately, only one
stakeholder group or one social aspect, such as ‘job creation’ (e.g.
Aguilar-Hernandez et al., 2021; Mota et al., 2015) or ‘societal welfare’
(e.g. He et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2015) was considered. Panda et al.
(2017) even argued that manufacturers can express their social re­
sponsibility by implementing recycling activities as profit-maximising
tool to improve stakeholders’ welfare. Would recycling activities and
profit maximisation not rather constitute an environmental and eco­
nomic indicator? This aligns with Stindt’s (2017) observation of an
unevolved social dimension based on measurements of often singular
nominal indicators.
Considering all stakeholder groups and all identified social aspects at
all times exceeds most research scopes, and naturally, not all stake­
holders and social issues are equally relevant. Nevertheless, the scope of
understanding and interpreting the social dimension within the circular
economy concept should diversify and extend beyond equating social
sustainability in a circular economy with a single aspect and addressing
only one stakeholder group.
We regard it essential that future research take several de facto social
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960
factors into account when analysing the social dimension to capture the
complexity of sustainability (Ehrenfeld, 2007). By ‘de facto’, we mean
going beyond those social factors closely related to economic or
ecological factors. This includes the need for adequate quantitative so­
cial indicators (Saidani et al., 2019). As long as the circular economy
concept lacks central moral and ethical aspects, “it is unclear how the
concept of the circular economy will lead to greater social equality”
(Murray et al., 2017, p. 376).
Our analysis and CLDs may provide primary insights into the social
dimension of the circular economy and its dynamic interrelation,
contributing to the advancement of conceptual clarity for both the cir­
cular economy concept and its social sustainability dimension. Dis­
tinguishing the various and mutual social issues that arise within
different stakeholder groups may foster the plurality of social sustain­
ability in implementing circular economy initiatives and future research
projects.
5.5. Challenging the instrumental approach
The prevailing—but recently challenged—instrumental approach to
corporate and supply chain sustainability (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002;
Gold and Schleper, 2017) can also be recognised within the circular
economy discourse, represented by a strong economic perspective and a
win-win-oriented approach to resource scarcity and environmental
regulations. Some of the identified social aspects, such as corporate
reputation, customer satisfaction and job creation, reflect this instru­
mental economic focus on social sustainability. Arguing from a holistic
sustainability perspective, this study challenges this predominant
instrumental focus and calls for a more balanced approach. In line with
Ehrenfeld (2007), a stronger normative influence is, potentially, neces­
sary in circular economy research as well to encourage the essential
transition and redesign of the current economic system into a holistic,
sustainable circular economy (Elkington, 2018; Missimer et al., 2017a).
As the circular economy is seen as a driver for the transition towards
a truly sustainable economic system, it has to be understood as an in­
tegral part of society. This implies, for both future research and practical
circular economy initiatives, the recognition of the needs and expecta­
tions of all members of society and the application of a value-based,
normative approach to circular economy instead of profit-oriented
instrumental logic. It will be necessary for future research that re­
searchers think outside the box to identify the respective relevant social
issues and, potentially, identify new measures for social sustainability
(Korhonen et al., 2018). Follow-up research should look beyond tradi­
tional and easily measurable social indicators. This also requires the
acknowledgement of inherent sustainability tensions, such as within
social, environmental and economic concerns or regarding conflicting
stakeholder interests (e.g. Wannags and Gold, 2020), rather than
focusing on win-win situations alone (Hahn et al., 2018). The presence
of competing stakeholder interests further implies the need for
well-organised stakeholder management (Inigo and Blok, 2019). Issues
regarding the measurability of social sustainability and the weak overall
demand for social sustainability (in contrast to the more accentuated
societal demands for environmental performance) should also be further
addressed in future research.
6. Conclusion
In the context of resource scarcity and climate change, the concept of
a circular economy is promoted as a sustainable alternative to the pre­
dominant linear economic system. While economic and environmental
sustainability aspects have been widely discussed, social sustainability
aspects within the circular economy need further emphasis and
consideration. This paper sought to clarify both the scope and relevance
of the social dimension of the circular economy concept, namely, how it
is and how it should be reflected within the scholarly discussion.
Through a systematic literature review, central aspects of social
A. Mies and S. Gold
sustainability elements in the context of different actor groups were
identified from the academic circular economy discourse. Causal loop
modelling further discerned the interrelations between both social ele­
ments and actor groups.
Employment opportunities, education and awareness, health and
safety, and government involvement were identified as the most
commonly discussed social issues. While various social factors recurred
among several actor groups, others were mentioned only in the context
of specific actor groups even though they might also be relevant to other
actors. Not all actors and social sustainability concerns were explicitly
and equally considered in the different circular economy research per­
spectives (i.e. micro, meso and macro levels). This opens avenues for
future research, which were discussed. This study contributes to the
conceptual clarity of the circular economy, particularly by recognising
and integrating of the social sustainability dimension as part of the
comprehensive integration of the sustainability paradigm into the cir­
cular economy concept. To capture the complexities of sustainability, we
encourage a more diverse consideration of the social dimension in the
circular economy, integrating different stakeholder groups and consid­
ering multiple social aspects that should go beyond the easily measur­
able social factors directly related to the economic or ecological
sustainability dimensions.
This study identified various leverage points that may spur a suc­
cessful and sustainable transformation into a circular economy. Among
many points, a change in organisational and societal mindset is required,
supported by education and awareness-raising efforts and the active
involvement of various stakeholders throughout the entire trans­
formation process. Legislative support was also shown to have a sig­
nificant influence on the organisational adoption of sustainable circular
economy-related practices. Ultimately, the circular economy must be
understood as an integral part of society and the ecosystem in which it is
embedded. A more value-based, normative approach to circular econ­
omy, rather than profit-driven instrumental reasoning, may be needed
for the transition towards a truly sustainable economic system.
Funding information
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128960.
References
Adams, M.A., Ghaly, A.E., 2006. An integral framework for sustainability assessment in
agro-industries: application to the costa rican coffee industry. Int. J. Sustain. Dev.
World Ecol. 13 (2), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500609469664.
Afshari, H., Tosarkani, B.M., Jaber, M.Y., Searcy, C., 2020. The effect of environmental
and social value objectives on optimal design in industrial energy symbiosis: a multi-
objective approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 158, 104825 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2020.104825.
Aguilar-Hernandez, G.A., Dias Rodrigues, J.F., Tukker, A., 2021. Macroeconomic, social
and environmental impacts of a circular economy up to 2050: a meta-analysis of
prospective studies. J. Clean. Prod. 278, 123421 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.123421.
Alaerts, L., van Acker, K., Rousseau, S., Jaeger, S. de, Moraga, G., Dewulf, J., Meester, S.,
de van Passel, S., Compernolle, T., Bachus, K., Vrancken, K., Eyckmans, J., 2019.
Towards a more direct policy feedback in circular economy monitoring via a societal
needs perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 149, 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2019.06.004.
14
Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960
Andiç, E., Yurt, O., Baltacioglu, T., Yurt, O., Baltacıoglu, T., 2012. Green supply chains:
efforts and potential applications for the Turkish market. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
58, 50–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.10.008.
Annarelli, A., Battistella, C., Nonino, F., 2016. Product service system: a conceptual
framework from a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 139, 1011–1032. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.061.
Ashton, W.S., Bain, A.C., 2012. Assessing the “short mental distance” in eco-industrial
networks. J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (1), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
9290.2011.00453.x.
Baas, L., 2011. Planning and uncovering industrial symbiosis: comparing the rotterdam
and ostergotland regions. Bus. Strat. Environ. 20 (7), 428–440. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bse.735.
Bakhiyi, B., Gravel, S., Ceballos, D., Flynn, M.A., Zayed, J., 2018. Has the question of e-
waste opened a pandora’s box? an overview of unpredictable issues and challenges.
Environ. Int. 110, 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.10.021.
Bansal, P., McKnight, B., 2009. Looking forward, pushing back and peering sideways:
analyzing the sustainability of industrial symbiosis. J. Supply Chain Manag. 45 (4),
26–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2009.03174.x.
Benoît, C., Mazijn, B., 2009. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products:
Social and Socio-Economic LCA Guidelines Complementing Environmental LCA and
Life Cycle Costing, Contributing to the Full Assessment of Goods and Services within
the Context of Sustainable Development. United Nations Environment Programme.
Blomsma, F., Brennan, G., 2017. The emergence of circular economy: a new framing
around prolonging resource productivity. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 603–614. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jiec.12603.
Bocken, N.M.P., 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21681015.2016.1172124.
Boons, F., Spekkink, W., 2012. Levels of institutional capacity and actor expectations
about industrial symbiosis: evidence from the Dutch stimulation program
1999–2004. J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
9290.2011.00432.x.
Braungart, M., McDonough, W., Bollinger, A., 2007. Cradle-to-cradle design: creating
healthy emissions - a strategy for eco-effective product and system design. J. Clean.
Prod. 15 (13–14), 1337–1348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.08.003.
Brix-Asala, C., Hahn, R., Seuring, S., 2016. Reverse logistics and informal valorisation at
the base of the pyramid: a case study on sustainability synergies and trade-offs. Eur.
Manag. J. 34 (4), 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.01.004.
Bruel, A., Kronenberg, J., Troussier, N., Guillaume, B., 2019. Linking industrial ecology
and ecological economics: a theoretical and empirical foundation for the circular
economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12745.
Bui, T.-D., Tsai, F.M., Tseng, M.-L., Wu, K.-J., Chiu, A.S., 2020. Effective municipal solid
waste management capability under uncertainty in vietnam: Utilizing economic
efficiency and technology to foster social mobilization and environmental integrity.
J. Clean. Prod. 259, 120981 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120981.
Carlowitz, H.C., 1713. Sylvicultura Oeconomica.
Carroll, A.B., 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 4 (4), 497–505.
Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38 (5), 360–387.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882816.
Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., Hosseini, M.R., 2016. Drivers for adopting reverse logistics
in the construction industry: a qualitative study. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag.
23 (2), 134–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-06-2014-0087.
Clube, R.K., Tennant, M., 2020. The circular economy and human needs satisfaction:
Promising the radical, delivering the familiar. Ecol. Econ. 177, 106772 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106772.
Corona, B., Shen, L., Reike, D., Rosales Carreón, J., Worrell, E., 2019. Towards
sustainable development through the circular economy—a review and critical
assessment on current circularity metrics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 151, 104498
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498.
Devika, K., Jafarian, A., Nourbakhsh, V., 2014. Designing a sustainable closed-loop
supply chain network based on triple bottom line approach: a comparison of
metaheuristics hybridization techniques. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 235 (3), 594–615.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.12.032.
Diniz Chaves, G.d.L., dos Santos JR., J.L., Santana Rocha, S.M., 2014. The challenges for
solid waste management in accordance with agenda 21: a brazilian case review.
Waste Manag. Res. 32 (9), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X14541987.
Dixit, S., Badgaiyan, A.J., 2016. Towards improved understanding of reverse logistics:
examining mediating role of return intention. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 107,
115–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.021.
Dururu, J., Anderson, C., Bates, M., Montasser, W., Tudor, T., 2015. Enhancing
engagement with community sector organisations working in sustainable waste
management: a case study. Waste Manag. Res. 33 (3), 284–290. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0734242X14567504.
Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.
Bus. Strat. Environ. 11 (2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323.
Eckelman, M.J., Ashton, W., Arakaki, Y., Hanaki, K., Nagashima, S., Malone-Lee, L.C.,
2014. Island waste management systems: statistics, challenges, and opportunities for
applied industrial ecology. J. Ind. Ecol. 18 (2), 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jiec.12113.
Edalatpour, M.A., Al-e-hashem, S.M., Karimi, B., Bahli, B., 2018. Investigation on a novel
sustainable model for waste management in megacities: a case study in tehran
municipality. Sustainable Cities and Society 36, 286–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scs.2017.09.019.
A. Mies and S. Gold
Ehrenfeld, J.R., 2007. Would industrial ecology exist without sustainability in the
background? J. Ind. Ecol. 11 (1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.2007.1177.
Elabras Veiga, L.B., Magrini, A., 2009. Eco-industrial park development in rio de janeiro,
Brazil: a tool for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (7), 653–661. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.11.009.
Elkington, J., 1998. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.
New Society Publishers.
Elkington, J., 2018. 25 years ago I coined the phrase “triple bottom line.” Heres why its
time to rethink it. Harv. Bus. Rev. June 25.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013. Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated
Transition (Towards the Circular Economy No. 1).
European Commission, 2015. Closing the Loop: an EU Action Plan for the Circular
Economy. COM (2015) 614 Final. December 2. European Commission, Brussels.
Ezzat, A.M., 2016. Sustainable development of seaport cities through circular economy: a
comparative study with implications to suez canal corridor project. Eur. J. Sustain.
Dev. 5 (4), 509–522. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2016.v5n4p509.
Ferrer, G., Cortezia, S., Neumann, J.M., 2012. Green city: environmental and social
responsibility in an industrial cluster. J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (1), 142–152. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00442.x.
Fink, A., 2020. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: from the Internet to Paper, fifth
ed. SAGE Publicaitons, Inc.
Forrester, J.W., 1961. Industrial Dynamics. Productivity Press; M.I.T. Press
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Gall, M., Wiener, M., Chagas de Oliveira, C., Lang, R.W., Hansen, E.G., 2020. Building a
circular plastics economy with informal waste pickers: Recyclate quality, business
model, and societal impacts. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 156, 104685 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104685.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The circular economy:
a new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 757–768. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
Geng, Y., Fu, J., Sarkis, J., Xue, B., 2012. Towards a national circular economy indicator
system in China: an evaluation and critical analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 23 (1), 216–224.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.005.
Ghali, M.R., Frayret, J.-M., Ahabchane, C., 2017. Agent-based model of self-organized
industrial symbiosis. J. Clean. Prod. 161, 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.05.128.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the expected
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean.
Prod. 114, 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007.
Ghisolfi, V., Chaves, G.d.L.D., Siman, R.R., Xavier, L.H., 2017. System dynamics applied
to closed loop supply chains of desktops and laptops in Brazil: a perspective for social
inclusion of waste pickers. Waste Manag. 60, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2016.12.018.
Global Reporting Initiative, 2002. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Global Reporting
Initiative, Boston (GRI).
Gold, S., Schleper, M.C., 2017. A pathway towards true sustainability: a recognition
foundation of sustainable supply chain management. Eur. Manag. J. 35 (4),
425–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.06.008.
Gong, Z., Guo, K., He, X., 2021. Corporate social responsibility based on radial basis
function neural network evaluation model of low-carbon circular economy coupled
development. Complexity 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5592569, 2021.
Gorane, S., Kant, R., 2016. Supply chain practices: an implementation status in indian
manufacturing organisations. Benchmark Int. J. 23 (5), 1076–1110. https://doi.org/
10.1108/BIJ-06-2014-0059.
Govindan, K., Jha, P.C., Garg, K., 2016. Product recovery optimization in closed-loop
supply chain to improve sustainability in manufacturing. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (5),
1463–1486. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1083625.
Guarnieri, P., Camara e Silva, L., Levino, N.A., 2016. Analysis of electronic waste reverse
logistics decisions using strategic options development analysis methodology: a
brazilian case. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 1105–1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.06.025.
Guibrunet, L., Calvet, M.S., Broto, V.C., 2017. Flows, system boundaries and the politics
of urban metabolism: waste management in Mexico city and santiago de Chile.
Geoforum 85, 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.10.011.
Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., 2018. A paradox perspective on corporate
sustainability: descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. J. Bus. Ethics 148
(2), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3587-2.
He, R., Xiong, Y., Lin, Z., 2016. Carbon emissions in a dual channel closed loop supply
chain: the impact of consumer free riding behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 134, 384–394.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.142.
Hewes, A.K., Lyons, D.I., 2008. The humanistic side of eco-industrial parks: champions
and the role of trust. Reg. Stud. 42 (10), 1329–1342. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00343400701654079.
Hickle, G., 2017. Extending the boundaries: an assessment of the integration of extended
producer responsibility within corporate social responsibility. Bus. Strat. Environ. 26
(1), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1908.
Hobson, K., 2016. Closing the loop or squaring the circle? locating generative spaces for
the circular economy. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 40 (1), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0309132514566342.
Hobson, K., 2020. ‘Small stories of closing loops’: social circularity and the everyday
circular economy. Climatic Change 163 (1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10584-019-02480-z.
Hoffman, A.J., 2003. Linking social systems analysis to the industrial ecology framework.
Organ. Environ. 16 (1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026602250219.
15
Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960
Holmgren, S., D’Amato, D., Giurca, A., 2020. Bioeconomy imaginaries: a review of
forest-related social science literature. Ambio 49 (12), 1860–1877. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13280-020-01398-6.
Homrich, A.S., Galvao, G., Abadi, L.G., Carvalho, M.M., 2018. The circular economy
umbrella: Trends and gaps on integrating pathways. J. Clean. Prod. 175, 525–543.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.064.
Hong, I.-H., Lee, Y.-T., Chang, P.-Y., 2014. Socially optimal and fund-balanced advanced
recycling fees and subsidies in a competitive forward and reverse supply chain.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 82, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2013.10.018.
Horbach, J., Rammer, C., 2019. Circular economy innovations, growth and employment
at the firm level: empirical evidence from Germany. J. Ind. Ecol. 8 (4), 229. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12977.
Hosseini-Motlagh, S.-M., Nami, N., Farshadfar, Z., 2020. Collection disruption
management and channel coordination in a socially concerned closed-loop supply
chain: a game theory approach. J. Clean. Prod. 276, 124173 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124173.
Iacovidou, E., Millward-Hopkins, J., Busch, J., Purnell, P., Velis, C.A., Hahladakis, J.N.,
Zwirner, O., Brown, A., 2017a. A pathway to circular economy: developing a
conceptual framework for complex value assessment of resources recovered from
waste. J. Clean. Prod. 168, 1279–1288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.09.002.
Iacovidou, E., Velis, C.A., Purnell, P., Zwirner, O., Brown, A., Hahladakis, J., Millward-
Hopkins, J., Williams, P.T., 2017b. Metrics for optimising the multi-dimensional
value of resources recovered from waste in a circular economy: a critical review.
J. Clean. Prod. 166, 910–938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.100.
Inigo, E.A., Blok, V., 2019. Strengthening the socio-ethical foundations of the circular
economy: lessons from responsible research and innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 233,
280–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.053.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Sarkis, J., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B., Scott Renwick, D.W., Singh, S.
K., Grebinevych, O., Kruglianskas, I., Filho, M.G., 2019. Who is in charge? A review
and a research agenda on the ‘human side’ of the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod.
222, 793–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.038.
Jacques, J.J., Guimarães, L.B.M., 2012. A study of material composition disclosure
practices in green footwear products. Work 41, 2101–2108. https://doi.org/
10.3233/WOR-2012-0438-2101.
Jalil, E.E.A., Grant, D.B., Nicholson, J.D., Deutz, P., 2016. Reverse logistics in household
recycling and waste systems: a symbiosis perspective. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J.
21 (2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-02-2015-0056.
Jena, S.K., Sarmah, S.P., 2015. Measurement of consumers’ return intention index
towards returning the used products. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 818–829. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015,05.115.
Jung, S., Dodbiba, G., Chae, S.H., Fujita, T., 2013. A novel approach for evaluating the
performance of eco-industrial park pilot projects. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 50–59. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.030.
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an
analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221–232. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005.
Knickmeyer, D., 2020. Social factors influencing household waste separation: a literature
review on good practices to improve the recycling performance of urban areas.
J. Clean. Prod. 245, 118605 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118605.
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., Seppälä, J., 2018a. Circular economy: the concept and its
limitations. Ecol. Econ. 143, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2017.06.041.
Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., Birkie, S.E., 2018b. Circular economy as an
essentially contested concept. J. Clean. Prod. 175, 544–552. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111.
Kühnen, M., Hahn, R., 2017. Indicators in social life cycle assessment: a review of
frameworks, theories, and empirical experience. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (6), 1547–1565.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12663.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., van Erck, R.P., 2005. Assessing the sustainability
performances of industries. J. Clean. Prod. 13 (4), 373–385. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.10.007.
Laitinen, J., Antikainen, R., Hukka, J.J., Katko, T.S., 2020. Water supply and sanitation
in a green economy society: the case of Finland. Publ. Works Manag. Pol. 25 (1),
33–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X19847211.
Lane, D.C., 2008. The emergence and use of diagramming in system dynamics: a critical
account. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 25 (1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.826.
Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M.,
Thomas, C.J., 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice,
principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science 7 (S1), 25–43. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x.
Laurenti, R., Singh, J., Sinha, R., Potting, J., Frostell, B., 2016. Unintended
environmental consequences of improvement actions: a qualitative analysis of
systems’ structure and behavior. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 33 (3), 381–399. https://doi.
org/10.1002/sres.2330.
Laurenti, R., Sinha, R., Singh, J., Frostell, B., 2015. Some pervasive challenges to
sustainability by design of electronic products - a conceptual discussion. J. Clean.
Prod. 108, 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.041.
Lehtokunnas, T., Mattila, M., Närvänen, E., Mesiranta, N., 2020. Towards a circular
economy in food consumption: food waste reduction practices as ethical work.
J. Consum. Cult. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540520926252, 146954052092625.
Lekan, M., Rogers, H.A., 2020. Digitally enabled diverse economies: exploring socially
inclusive access to the circular economy in the city. Urban Geogr. 41 (6), 898–901.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1796097.
A. Mies and S. Gold
Lu, J., Ren, L., Zhang, C., Rong, D., Ahmed, R.R., Streimikis, J., 2020. Modified carroll’s
pyramid of corporate social responsibility to enhance organizational performance of
smes industry. J. Clean. Prod. 271, 122456 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.122456.
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Gold, S., Bocken, N.M.P., 2019. A review and typology of circular
economy business model patterns. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (1), 36–61. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jiec.12763.
Manhart, A., 2011. International cooperation for metal recycling from waste electrical
and electronic equipment: an assessment of the “best-of-two-worlds” approach.
J. Ind. Ecol. 15 (1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00307.x.
Marcus, J., Kurucz, E.C., Colbert, B.A., 2010. Conceptions of the business-society-nature
interface: implications for management scholarship. Bus. Soc. 49 (3), 402–438.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650310368827.
Martínez-Blanco, J., Lehmann, A., Chang, Y.-J., Finkbeiner, M., 2015. Social
organizational lca (solca): a new approach for implementing social lca. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 20 (11), 1586–1599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0960-1.
Mathews, J.A., Tang, Y., Tan, H., 2011. China’s move to a circular economy as a
development strategy. Asian Bus. Manag. 10 (4), 463–484. https://doi.org/10.1057/
abm.2011.18.
Mayer, A., Haas, W., Wiedenhofer, D., Krausmann, F., Nuss, P., Blengini, G.A., 2019.
Measuring progress towards a circular economy: a monitoring framework for
economy-wide material loop closing in the eu28. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (1), 62–76. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12809.
Mayring, P., 2003. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Qualitative
Content Analysis – Basics and Techniques, eighth ed., vol. 8229. UTB (Beltz).
Meadows, D., 1999. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. The Sustainability
Institute.
Merli, R., Preziosi, M., Acampora, A., 2018. How do scholars approach the circular
economy? a systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 178, 703–722. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112.
Millar, N., McLaughlin, E., Börger, T., 2019. The circular economy: swings and
roundabouts? Ecol. Econ. 158, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2018.12.012.
Missimer, M., Robèrt, K.-H., Broman, G., 2017a. A strategic approach to social
sustainability: part 2: a principle-based definition. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 42–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.059.
Missimer, M., Robèrt, K.-H., Broman, G., 2017b. A strategic approach to social
sustainability: part 1: exploring the social system. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 32–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.170.
Moreau, V., Sahakian, M., van Griethuysen, P., Vuille, F., 2017. Coming full circle: why
social and institutional dimensions matter for the circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 21
(3), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12598.
Mota, B., Gomes, M.I., Carvalho, A., Barbosa-Povoa, A.P., 2015. Towards supply chain
sustainability: economic, environmental and social design and planning. J. Clean.
Prod. 105, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.052.
Murphy, K., 2012. The social pillar of sustainable development: a literature review and
framework for policy analysis. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Pol. 8 (1), 15–29. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15487733.2012.11908081.
Murray, A., Skene, K., Haynes, K., 2017. The circular economy: an interdisciplinary
exploration of the concept and application in a global context. J. Bus. Ethics 140 (3),
369–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2.
Niang, A., Torre, A., Bourdin, S., 2021. Territorial governance and actors’ coordination
in a local project of anaerobic digestion. A social network analysis. Eur. Plann. Stud.
1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1891208.
Nikolaou, I.E., Evangelinos, K.I., Allan, S., 2013. A reverse logistics social responsibility
evaluation framework based on the triple bottom line approach. J. Clean. Prod. 56,
173–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.009.
Okkonen, L., 2008. Applying industrial ecosystem indicators: case of pielinen karelia.
Finland. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 10 (4), 327–339. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10098-007-0122-7.
O’Reilly, S., Kumar, A., 2016. Closing the loop: an exploratory study of reverse ready-
made garment supply chains in Delhi ncr. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 27 (2), 486–510.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-03-2015-0050.
Padilla-Rivera, A., Russo-Garrido, S., Merveille, N., 2020. Addressing the social aspects of
a circular economy: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 12 (19), 7912.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197912.
Palacios-Gonzalez, M.M., Chamorro-Mera, A., 2020. Attitudes towards socially
responsible financial products: what do spaniards know and think? UCJC BUSINESS
and SOCIETY REVIEW 4, 18–35. https://doi.org/10.3232/UBR.2020.V17.N4.01.
Panda, S., Modak, N.M., Cárdenas-Barrón, L.E., 2017. Coordinating a socially responsible
closed-loop supply chain with product recycling. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 188, 11–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.03.010.
Pedram, A., Pedram, P., Bin Yusoff, N., Sorooshian, S., 2017. Development of closed-loop
supply chain network in terms of corporate social responsibility. PloS One 12 (4).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174951.
Petrescu, D., Petcou, C., Baibarac, C., 2016. Co-producing commons-based resilience:
lessons from r-urban. Build. Res. Inf. 44 (7), 717–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613218.2016.1214891.
Petry, R.A., Fadeeva, Z., Fadeeva, O., Hasslof, H., Hellstrom, A., Hermans, J.,
Mochizuki, Y., Sonesson, K., 2011. Educating for sustainable production and
consumption and sustainable livelihoods: learning from multi-stakeholder networks.
Sustainability Science 6 (1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0116-y.
Posch, A., Agarwal, A., Strachan, P., 2011. Editorial: Managing industrial symbiosis (is)
networks. Bus. Strat. Environ. 20 (7), 421–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.736.
16
Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960
Presley, A., Meade, L., Sarkis, J., 2007. A strategic sustainability justification
methodology for organizational decisions: a reverse logistics illustration. Int. J. Prod.
Res. 45 (18–19), 4595–4620. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540701440220.
Qu, Y., Liu, Y., Nayak, R.R., Li, M., 2015. Sustainable development of eco-industrial
parks in China: effects of managers’ environmental awareness on the relationships
between practice and performance. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 328–338. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.015.
Rashid, A., Asif, F.M.A., Krajnik, P., Nicolescu, C.M., 2013. Resource conservative
manufacturing: an essential change in business and technology paradigm for
sustainable manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 57, 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2013.06.012.
Rathore, P., Sarmah, S.P., 2020. Economic, environmental and social optimization of
solid waste management in the context of circular economy. Comput. Ind. Eng. 145,
106510 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106510.
Rebehy, P.C.P.W., Costa, A.L., Campello, C.A., Freitas Espinoza, D. de, Neto, M.J., 2017.
Innovative social business of selective waste collection in Brazil: cleaner production
and poverty reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 154, 462–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.03.173.
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. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 135, 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027.
Richmond, B., 1993. Systems thinking: critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond.
Syst. Dynam. Rev. 9 (2), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260090203.
Rovanto, I.K., Bask, A., 2021. Systemic circular business model application at the
company, supply chain and society levels—a view into circular economy native and
adopter companies. Bus. Strat. Environ. 30 (2), 1153–1173. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bse.2677.
Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., Cluzel, F., Kendall, A [Alissa], 2019. A taxonomy of
circular economy indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 207, 542–559. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.014.
Sarkis, J., Helms, M.M., Hervani, A.A., 2010. Reverse logistics and social sustainability.
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 17 (6), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/
csr.220.
Schröder, P., Anggraeni, K., Weber, U., 2019. The relevance of circular economy
practices to the sustainable development goals. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (1), 77–95. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12732.
Schröder, P., Lemille, A., Desmond, P., 2020. Making the circular economy work for
human development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 156, 104686 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104686.
Seitz, M.A., 2007. A critical assessment of motives for product recovery: the case of
engine remanufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (11–12), 1147–1157. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.029.
Senge, P.M., 1990. The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. Doubleday.
Seuring, S., Gold, S., 2012. Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in
supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 17 (5), 544–555. https://
doi.org/10.1108/13598541211258609.
Simboli, A., Taddeo, R., Morgante, A., 2015. The potential of industrial ecology in agri-
food clusters (afcs): a case study based on valorisation of auxiliary materials. Ecol.
Econ. 111, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.005.
Stahel, W.R., 2013. Policy for material efficiency: sustainable taxation as a departure
from the throwaway society. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a 371
(1986), 20110567. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2011.0567.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M.,
Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., Vries, W. de, Wit, C. A. de, Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J.,
Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., Sörlin, S., 2015. Planetary
boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347 (6223),
1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855.
Sterman, J.D., 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex
World. Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Stindt, D., 2017. A generic planning approach for sustainable supply chain management:
how to integrate concepts and methods to address the issues of sustainability?
J. Clean. Prod. 153 (1), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.126.
Sudarto, S., Takahashi, K., Morikawa, K., Nagasawa, K., 2016. The impact of capacity
planning on product lifecycle for performance on sustainability dimensions in
reverse logistics social responsibility. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 28–42. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.095.
Swagemakers, P., Dominguez Garcia, M.D., Wiskerke, J.S.C., 2018. Socially-inclusive
development and value creation: how a composting project in galicia (Spain) ‘hit the
rocks’. Sustainability 10 (6), 2040. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062040.
Taddeo, R., Simboli, A., Morgante, A., 2012. Implementing eco-industrial parks in
existing clusters: findings from a historical Italian chemical site. J. Clean. Prod. 33,
22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.011.
Timmermans, S., Tavory, I., 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: from
grounded theory to abductive analysis. Socio. Theor. 30 (3), 167–186. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0735275112457914.
Tong, X., Nikolic, I., Dijkhuizen, B., van den Hoven, M., Minderhoud, M., Wackerlin, N.,
Wang, T., Tao, D., 2018. Behaviour change in post-consumer recycling: applying
agent-based modelling in social experiment. J. Clean. Prod. 187, 1006–1013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.261.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J.
Manag. 14 (3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
A. Mies and S. Gold
Vahidzadeh, R., Bertanza, G., Sbaffoni, S., Vaccari, M., 2021. Regional industrial
symbiosis: a review based on social network analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 280, 124054
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124054.
Valenzuela-Venegas, G., Cristian Salgado, J., Diaz-Alvarado, F.A., 2016. Sustainability
indicators for the assessment of eco-industrial parks: classification and criteria for
selection. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.05.113.
van der Leer, J., van Timmeren, A., Wandl, A., 2018. Social-ecological-technical systems
in urban planning for a circular economy: an opportunity for horizontal integration.
Architect. Sci. Rev. 61 (5), 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00038628.2018.1505598.
Wang, W., Zhang, Y., Zhang, K., Bai, T., Shang, J., 2015. Reward-penalty mechanism for
closed-loop supply chains under responsibility-sharing and different power
structures. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 170, 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2015.09.003.
17
Journal of Cleaner Production 321 (2021) 128960
Wannags, L.L., Gold, S., 2020. Assessing tensions in corporate sustainability transition:
From a review of the literature towards an actor-oriented management approach.
J. Clean. Prod. 264 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121662.
Wettstein, F., 2010. For better or for worse: corporate responsibility beyond “do no
harm”. Bus. Ethics Q. 20 (2), 275–283.
Winans, K., Kendall, A.[A.], Deng, H., 2017. The history and current applications of the
circular economy concept. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 68, 825–833. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.123.
Younis, H., Sundarakani, B., Vel, P., 2016. The impact of implementing green supply
chain management practices on corporate performance. Compet. Rev. 26 (3),
216–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-04-2015-0024.
Yuan, R., Liu, M.J., Chong, A.Y.-L., Tan, K.H., 2016. An empirical analysis of consumer
motivation towards reverse exchange. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 21 (2), 180–193.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-08-2015-0327.
Zink, T., Geyer, R., 2019. Material recycling and the myth of landfill diversion. J. Ind.
Ecol. 23 (3), 541–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12808.