Resources, Conservation & Recycling 163 (2020) 105092

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

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

Full length article

Circular economy. The Greek industry leaders’ way towards a T

transformational shift
M. Trigkasa, , G. Karagounib, K. Mpyroua, I. Papadopoulosb
⁎

a
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Greece, Department of Forestry and Natural Environment, Lab. of Forest Economics, 55124 Thessaloniki, P.O. box 242, Greece
b
University of Thessaly Greece, Department of Forestry, Wood Sciences and Design, Karditsa, Greece

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Circular Economy (CE) has caught the eye of scholars, practitioners and policy makers. Τhe discussion so far
Circular economy seems to touch mainly the meso and macro level, while investigations on implementation issues regard mainly
Large national companies start-ups or new, flexible SMEs with CE-based visions. Up to date, there is extremely limited research on the
Greece challenges that well-established – usually deeply rooted in the linear model - organizations face when deciding a
Circular economy practices
shift to the CE. However, this is undeniably a major challenge and it appears that there are many questions to be
Business strategies
answered for such established organizations which indent to apply the concept in their business models suc-
cessfully. The research purports to shed some light in this direction. For that purpose, a sample of the 200 TOP
business in Greece that had implemented CE procedures was surveyed in order to: a) investigate the ways that
Greek leading companies try to implement CE principles in view of procedures, practices and measures; and b)
identify the level of adjustment to specific national directives and EU policies. The study uncovers the difficulty
of such leading business to embrace the innovativeness of the circular economy and their positioning to en-
counter the emergent CE issue pointing to the need of different approaches for them by policymakers. This is
actually the study's main contribution: it highlights the vulnerability of large national leading companies in such
radical transitions, their selective strategic choices, their insecurity and confusion and the adjustments needed to
decide a transition to CE.

1. Introduction general institutional framework (European Commission, 2015). Such

There is a growing political and socioeconomic consensus about the
imperative need to disconnect economic growth from environmental
impacts. The new Circular Economy Action Plan of the
European Union (2020) predicts that global consumption of biomass,
metals and other materials will double in the forthcoming forty years.
At the same time waste generation will increase by 70% within the next
thirty years. At the end of products’ life cycle, the majority (60%) either
ends up as waste or is incinerated (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015).
Only 40% of the materials are used for recycling or in reuse processes
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). According to contemporary in-
novative concepts shaping the present but especially the future of
economies, we must consider the transformational shift from an es-
tablished linear economic model into a circular one as rather obligatory
(MacArthur, 2013; Melece, 2016; Welfens et al., 2017; Winans et al.,
2017). The transition towards the circular economy (CE) requires a
gradual change of all conditions and established processes in the ex-
isting economic models over time, along with the adjustment of the
conditions may refer to government actions including taxation, in-
centives, procurement, education (awareness raising and skills acqui-
sition), legal framework, finance and funding opportunities, technolo-
gies and standards (European Commission, 2015). The CE–based
certifications and labeling schemes are further needed to help con-
sumers and businesses to establish value propositions and products
aligned with principles of the CE (e.g. design out waste) (Horne, 2009;
Ferdousi and Qiang, 2016; Hazen et al., 2017). In short, the transition
to the CE entails a systemic change requiring action by all parts of the
triangle: institutions, industry and civil society (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2013).
With increasing pressures on natural resources, the notion of more
efficient use of materials and resources has become an overriding issue
around the world. Therefore, a sustainable, competitive economy
should be both recuperative and regenerative by design
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015; Trigkas et al., 2018; Haupt and
Hellweg, 2019; Pieroni et al., 2019).
In the CE, redesigning of products aims to increase their value and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mtrigkas@for.auth.gr (M. Trigkas), karagg@uth.gr (G. Karagouni), kdmpyrou@for.auth.gr (K. Mpyrou), papadio@uth.gr (I. Papadopoulos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105092
Received 18 December 2019; Received in revised form 31 July 2020; Accepted 1 August 2020
Available online 05 August 2020
0921-3449/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Trigkas, et al.
to disconnect growth from the imperative use of resources (Mestre and
Cooper, 2017; Korhonen et al., 2018). Efforts have been also made to
extend the life of the products (Bakker et al., 2014; Jawahir and
Bradley, 2016; Mavroudis, 2018; Franco, 2019). CE is briefly described
as a “4R” approach: reduction, reuse, recycle and recover. Through this
process the amount of waste can be minimized and managed more ef-
ficiently. As a result, the model can provide solutions to multiple en-
vironmental problems whilst preserving natural resources. However,
there are challenges in applying the CE, such as financing, consumer
behavior, business models, government, etc. (Planing, 2015;
Tukker, 2015; Ghisellini et al., 2016; Trigkas et al., 2018).
According to the European Commission (2015; 2017), the promo-
tion and transition to the CE requires the consideration of all the ac-
tivities that support the enterprise's value chain. An organization must
strategically adopt the principles of the CE in the value chain man-
agement, e.g. in operations, logistics, etc., including waste management
and secondary raw materials re-entering into the economic cycle
(Ritzén and Sandström, 2017; Karagouni, 2018). Based on this concept
several researchers have proposed different business models, categories
of CE indicators or approaches for measuring products’ and business
performance, along with implementation techniques of the CE and es-
tablishment of closed loops, in various industries or national economies
contexts (Bakker et al., 2014; Dieterle et al., 2018; Niero and
Kalbar, 2019; Moraga et al., 2019).
Both design and production methods impact the supply of raw
materials, resource consumption and waste production. The first
European Commission action proposed in the Member States was eco-
design for safer dismantling, reuse and recycling of products
(European Commission, 2015). Production methods constitute another
important stage within the CE concept. Even with the proper design and
production processes, we can end up with negative results, such as the
production of a significant amount of waste, if we do not consider the
efficient exploitation of natural and firm's resources, and raw materials
in the applied production methods. Several methods, processes and
models have been described by both researchers and policy makers;
indicatively, the promotion of innovative industrial processes on waste
and by-products utilization, known as industrial symbiosis, has become
quite popular to facilitate industrial co-existence across the European
Union (EU) (Mantese et al., 2018; Baldassarre et al., 2019;
Mortensen and Kørnøv, 2019). However, according to relevant litera-
ture, circularity is rather mediocre in the majority of the manufacturing
sectors (Lieder and Rashid, 2016; Trigkas et al., 2018). Accordingly,
regulatory pressures, environmental value drivers and other economic
drivers have been considered as quite critical but rather ineffective for
circular actions of any type (Gusmerotti et al., 2019).
Consumers’ role is rather focal in the CE, with the influence they
exert in the acceptance and adoption of circular products and services.
Choices are usually shaped by the information that consumers have
access to, the variety and prices of available products and the relevant
regulatory framework (Borrello et al., 2017; Trigkas et al., 2018).
Consumers are often confronted with a multitude of brands and en-
vironmental claims, making it difficult to distinguish differences be-
tween products. Consumer attitudes have been considered a vital piece
of the CE puzzle and several actions have been proposed to provide
structural support and benefits; indicatively, clear and reliable labeling,
improved recovery, product upgrading, and durability are important
parts. Innovative forms of consumption, such as product or infra-
structure sharing (cooperative or sharing economy), may be areas
where new business opportunities will emerge during the transition to
the CE (Ferdousi and Qiang, 2016; Trigkas et al., 2018; Muranko et al.,
2019).
Increasing attention within the CE has been paid to waste man-
agement, which implies reducing waste to a minimum. The basic
principle is that end of life of a product can be a new beginning for
several of its parts; these can be used by multiple ways and for multiple
times, saving waste and creating new value. Major CE activities are
2
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 163 (2020) 105092
therefore the repair, reuse, recycle and refurbish the existing products
and their materials (MacArthur, 2013; Mair and Stern, 2017). Through
waste collection and management, one part ends up in recycling and
returns to valuable materials in the economy and most of the recyclable
waste ends up in landfills, causing harmful effects on the economy and
the environment (Pantazopoulou et al., 2015). CE is all about retaining
value. The better the integrity of the product is preserved, the more
value is retained. So far, secondary raw materials still represent a small
percentage of materials used in the European Union
(European Environment Agency, 2016).
The potential of the CE has started to attract the attention at a na-
tional and firm level. The adoption of circularity strategies seems to be
popular within start-ups, young business and mainly Small and
Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and thus such cases are the ones
usually addressed by the relevant theoretical and empirical literature
(Zucchella, 2019; Bauwens et al., 2020). Indicatively, several papers
investigate the issue of barriers and enablers to CE transition for SMEs
(see, for example, Fernández-Viñé et al., 2010; Rizos et al., 2016;
Bauwens et al., 2020). On the other hand, there is scarce evidence of
changes in big established organizations. Among the few relevant pa-
pers, Stewart and Niero (2018), made a relevant study of 46 established
firms engaged in CE activities for the Fast Moving Consumer Goods
(FMCG) global industry, referring mainly to multinational companies.
According to their findings, such organizations seems to start in-
corporating some of the main CE principles into their sustainability
agenda, however, most of them present low circularity, not engaging
innovative ways of creating value. On the other hand, besides the focal
role of the consumers to the transition towards the CE, their involve-
ment has been neglected. In the same vein, recent work focuses on
barriers and challenges, best practice and enablers of CE implementa-
tion mainly in multinational enterprises (Rios and Charnley, 2017).
In general, established firms follow mainly linear models which is a
significant obstacle for the transition to the CE (Bag et al., 2019).
Bauwens et al. (2020), in their study on CE start-ups, make some
comparison and reference to established firms as well. They comment
that such companies prefer to make marginal changes, invest mainly in
recycling and incorporate end-in-life management strategies.
According to the limited literature, it appears that established or-
ganizations have started to add the CE principles in their responsibility
agendas. Empirical evidence, so far, is mediocre and refers to either
international or public organizations (Malinauskaite et al., 2017;
Papadopoulou et al., 2017). There are still many questions in regard of
national established companies that cover mainly the national market
and intend to implement the CE concept in their business models.
The present survey purports to shed some light in this direction; it
endeavors to investigate Greek national leading organizations attitudes
towards CE implementation. Therefore, this study aims to explore the
main procedures, practices and measures of the Greek industries for
shifting to the CE, in the context of the adoption of a strategic transition
from the linear production model to a more effective, efficient, and
viable circular one. Specifically, the study will try to place a missing
link between academic research on CE and business practice, regarding
national leading business players and, thus, trying to answer the fol-
lowing research questions:
• Q1: Which are the key practices that Greek leading companies im-
plement to adopt circularity in their operations?
• Q2: To what extend are they adjusted to national directives and
policies for a transition to the CE?
• Q3: Which are the main adjustments the Greek leaders need to make
in order to achieve this transformational shift?
The remainder of the article is structured as follows: The following
section presents the methodology to answer the above research ques-
tions. Sections 3 and 4 provide the empirical results and the discussion
while conclusions shed light on the contribution, the limitations of the
M. Trigkas, et al.
present study and provide the implications of the results and some
suggestions for further research.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample and data collection
The study's population was drawn from the Greek Industry Leading
companies’ database. This includes the 200 most profitable businesses
based on earnings before taxes (TOP 200) as listed in the annual
business publication “The strongest of the Greek economy”
(Direction Business Network, 2014). During the questionnaire devel-
opment, in-depth interviews were contacted with two top managers of
different sectors, in order to avoid sector sensitive items included in the
final questionnaire.
The first contact with the 200 companies was made in May 2018, by
phone call and regarded the adoption or development of any type of
shift to the CE. Out of the 200 leading companies, 154 were im-
plementing CE practices. The questionnaire was e-mailed to these firms,
followed by a phone-call. Four weeks later, after the initial e-mail, a
reminder mail was sent to those who did not return the completed
questionnaire.
A total of 32 firms participated in the study providing 30 acceptable
questionnaires (response rate of ~20%), which is a “large enough
sample”, following the general rule of thumb (n ≥ 30) and thus justi-
fying the use of normal distribution and the reliability of the results.
The fact that the participants had to fulfill the two basic criteria of a)
being among the 200 TOP in Greece; and b) having made some shift to
CE, introduces inevitably some inherent bias. Furthermore, the re-
sponse rate (RR) appears to be quite representative of the 154 firms of
the population, while non-responses regarded mainly lack of time to
fulfill the questionnaire and not some specific parameters of it (there
were no references to any confusing variables). Phillips et al. (2016)
note that “the relationship between response propensity and the vari-
able of interest… determines the extent of the bias” and that “response
rate alone is a fairly poor predictor of response bias” (p. 306). In the
same line, other researchers note that RR, by itself, is not the sole cri-
terion for assessing study quality (Cook et al., 2000).
To avoid common response bias associated with the provision of
data from the same source, whenever possible, and to minimize the
potential measurement of a single-information source, we tried to in-
dicate the most the most suitable and knowledgeable informants to
answer the sections of the questionnaire. e.g. financial managers pro-
vided the requested performance data. The organizations in the final
sample represent a variety of industry groups (Table 1), size, legal
forms and market orientation (Table 2).
Companies’ distribution according to age follow the general trend of
TOP200 leading companies, which in their majority are well estab-
lished long-living businesses. The same goes for the other company
characteristics as well; around 90% of TOP 200 are S.A.s, (Société
Anonyme companies) presented an annual turnover of more than €10
million and have more than 250 employees. The homogeneity of the
Table 1
Industry-sector distribution of the sample.
Industry sector No. of interviewed companies
Food processing industry 2
Manufacturing 5
Constructions 3 isting scales of the relevant empirical literature, together with the two
Energy 1 in-depth interviews with two CEOs and the discussions with the aca-
Waste management 1 demics at the pre-testing stage enhanced their development.
Telecommunications and electronics 3 The second step addressed construct validity through a series of
Wholesale/Retail services 6
Other 9
SUM 30
3
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 163 (2020) 105092
sample is quite expected since the investigation regarded leading
companies in Greece, in 2014 (and thus data refer to fiscal year 2013).
This explains why there are literally no businesses established in 2011
and 2012 in the TOP200 group. Greece lacks such gazelle type firms,
while back in 2014, it was more difficult to be both in TOP200 and to
have already implemented CE practices. Therefore, the response rate
appears to be quite representative of the 154 organizations that de-
clared a shift to CE, while the absence of firms established after 2010
does not appear to constitute any type of sample bias. Furthermore,
reasons given for non-response during telephone follow-ups regarded
mainly lack of time or were polite promises to email answers and thus
they were not sector, age or size specific.
2.2. The questionnaire
For all questionnaire items, five-point Liker scales were used, which
a widely accepted practice for similar research. The development of
scales was based on empirical and theoretical contributions from CE
scholars (e.g. Ritzén and Sandström, 2017; Karagouni, 2018;
Mavroudis, 2018; Franco, 2019) and after discussions with academics
and a number of managers. The items pertaining to each scale were pre-
tested in two steps: face-to-face interviews with three academics and
face-to-face interviews with two managers. Identified problematic items
were revised or eliminated. The pre-testing process allowed for the
assessment of the content validity of items and ensure that executives
would understand the research questionnaire.
The final questionnaire consisted of the profile description questions
and other three groups of questions and, more specifically: the first
group addresses the key product / process attributes within the CE
framework the participants regard as major priorities and the strategic
choices they have made regarding their shift to CE. The second group
regards the beliefs of the participants about the national and EU policies
and potential activities and initiatives that may facilitate a leading
company's shift to CE and support its enhancement. The last one re-
gards potential benefits companies can reap when shifting to CE. In all
questions, participants were asked to use 5 (in the five-point Likert
scale) only for practices, choices, policies and relevant initiatives they
had implemented; thus five (5) indicated implementation. The re-
spondents would use numbers 1 to 4 according to their beliefs, eva-
luation and potential choices. It should be mentioned that the present
work intends to answer the specific research questions, as posed in the
introductory section, and thus regards the two out of the three question
groups.
The data were imported, processed and analyzed with the IBM SPSS
Statistics 25 special statistical program, and related Frequencies,
Descriptive and Correlations tests were made (Howitt and
Cramer, 2003; Siomkos and Vasilikopoulou, 2005; Norusis, 2007), fo-
cusing on business practices for adopting the CE.
2.3. Reliability and validity
Construct validation was tested in two basic steps to minimize
measurement errors and potential bias. The first step checked for con-
tent validity, in order to identify those measurement items that are
deemed to form the construct of interest. The scales concerning key
product / process attributes, priorities and strategic choices, were de-
veloped based on theoretical contributions regarding CE literature and
especially the framework provided by Ellen MacArthur
Foundation (2015), good practices so far and the “4R” approach. Ex-
empirical tests in order to assure the actual use of the construct by the
empirical indicators and more precisely the properties of the indicators:
unidimensionality, reliability, and validity. Regarding the main
M. Trigkas, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 163 (2020) 105092

Table 2
Sample firms' profile.
Year of establishment Annual Turnover of last financial year Number of employees Legal Form
% % % %

<1990 70% <3.000.000€ 6.7% 10 - 49 13.3% S.A. 83.3%

1990 - 2000 26.7% 3 - 5.000.000€ 3.3% 50 - 249 10% L.T.D. 3.3%
2000 - 2010 3.3% 5 - 10.000.000€ 3.3% >250 76.7% Other 13.3%
>10.000.000€ 86.7%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

strategies for implementing CE by the Greek leader companies, con- Table 4

firmatory factor analysis was used to test construct validity of the Priorities and strategic choices for the implementation of the CE by the Greek
measures. This is done to determine which variables of the ques- leaders
tionnaire describe each category better. Factor analysis according to the (already implemented (5), in the close future (4), some time (3), possible im-
method of principal component analysis was used with varimax rota- plementation (2) and not at all (1)).
tion method (Wee and Quazi, 2005). Factor analysis was applied, to CE - shift strategies Mean Std. Deviation
reduce the variables used to describe practices for implementing the
Recycling of materials/ products / energy 3.77 1.30
principles of the CE into the firms’ value chain management, using
Disposal of solid waste in special concentration areas for 2.73 1.36
correlations between the variables assessed in this study. The method transfer to sanitary landfill
was employed since, the construct of CE implementation practices re- Purchase of products and raw materials with ecological 2.50 1.38
gards a variety of dimensions that describe various domains of the CE certifications
attribute. Within factorial validity analysis, each particular dimension Use of highly efficient mechanical equipment for optimal 2.50 1.48
resource utilization
is measured by a number of items which are highly related to one an- Disposal of raw materials to other enterprise and 2.47 1.50
other. The fifteen (15) items in our questionnaire describing CE im- industries
plementation practises, were finally grouped in four key practices Recovery of valuable materials and reuse 2.33 1.42
(constructs of CE practises) and more specifically, raw materials and Waste utilization for energy production 2.30 1.49
Remanufacturing or repairing of useful products 2.30 1.29
resources use, waste management and other CE related practices. The
Product life-cycle analysis 2.23 1.38
content reliability of the analysis is described in the results’ section. Eco-friendly design of products 2.20 1.37
Material flow analysis in the production process 2.13 1.46
Sharing of resources operations 1.90 1.03
3. Empirical results Development of product design with subsystems 1.80 1.19
Biofuel production 1.73 1.28
Sharing consuming 1.57 0.90
Recycling appears to be well established in leading companies in
Greece (4,37 ± 0.76) with a mean value of 4.37 in the 5 Likert scale. *n = 30 cases.
This is rather expected, since recycling has been long established as a
major action of environmental concern and companies had adapted Even the recycling of materials, products and energy which seems to be
such processes within the framework of social responsibility. the most applied by the sampled enterprises (3,77 ± 1.30) appear not
Minimization of the environmental impact of the product's life cycle to be connected to the need of creating close loops by extending pro-
(4,27 ± 0.74) and reusability of the product (4,20 ± 0.92) appear to ducts’ life cycle or by developing procedures for efficient use of re-
be significant determining factors in the system circularity (Table 3). sources. Furthermore, the very low means of the sharing procedures
Surprisingly, interpretation of the low means of Table 4 indicates (1,90 and 1,57) reveal the culture and attitudes of the Greek environ-
that respondents seem to approach established practices for the tran- ment, which appears to be rather unprepared to accept the sharing
sition in rather superficial ways, although they are leaders at national concept. It is quite evident, that Greek leading companies that are en-
level. Indicatively, product life cycle analysis, material flow analysis, gaged in CE practices implement mainly practices that refer to waste
eco- and modular design and industrial symbiosis, constitute funda- management and material use, while other sustainable manufacturing
mental approaches and processes in CE models according to relevant techniques are rather unfamiliar to them.
theory; however, they seem to be rather indifferent for the respondents. An analysis of the correlation with the use of Pearson coefficient has
been applied to identify complementary practices for the implementa-
Table 3 tion of the CE by enterprises and their focus on adjusting their pro-
Importance of procedures and products attributes for the transition to the CE ductive and business processes (Table 6).
(1 not significant, 5 significant). The results indicate that Waste utilization for energy production,
Procedures and products attributes Mean Std. Deviation material flow analysis in the production process and Product life-cycle
analysis are the variables that present the strongest associations with
Recyclability of products 4.37 0.76
each other or other variables. Furthermore, our analysis using the x2
Minimization of the environmental impact of the life 4.27 0.74
cycle product criterion, showed a strong statistical correlation between the legal form
Reusability of products 4.20 0,92 of business and the year of establishment, with the knowledge of the CE
Increased product content in renewable materials 4.10 0.71 with S.A.s to be the companies best informed on CE, and well-estab-
Biodegradation or composting of the product 4.03 0.99 lished companies (<1990) to be best informed on CE as well
Technological and environmental impacts in the 4.03 0.72
(x2=13,04, df=2, p=.001 and x2=13,38, df=2, p=.034 respectively)
production process
Repair of available spare parts 3.93 0.87 (Table 5).
Impact on production costs through resource efficiency 3.90 0.61 Factor analysis was applied to reduce the variables used to describe
Product durability in use 3.73 0.98 practices for implementing the principles of the CE into the firms’ value
Product price 3.70 0.95
chain management, using correlations between the variables assessed in
Strengthening consumer model for product sharing 3.50 0.77
this study. Factor analysis was used to determine which variables of the
*n = 30 cases. questionnaire describe each category better. Hence, these practices

4
M. Trigkas, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 163 (2020) 105092

Table 5 transition to CE and the reconstruction of the production procedures

Cross tabulation of the knowledge of CE with legal form and year of estab- that Greek leaders must make, along with the development of both
lishment of Greek leaders. process and product technological innovations.
Crosstabs Legal form Total
L.T.D. S.A. Other 4. Discussion

Knowledge of CE YES 0 24 2 26
The purpose of the study was to map the main procedures, business
NO 1 1 2 4
Total 1 25 4 30 strategies and measures of the Greek industries’ leaders when switching
Chi-SquareTests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) to the CE. Based on the findings, several indications can be provided to
Pearson Chi-Square 13.04 2 .001 well-established leading firms and, - consequently, to Greek firms in
Likelihood Ratio 9.62 2 .008
general-towards a number of necessary adjustments for a successful
Linear-by-Linear 3.64 1 .057
Association
strategic shift to the CE.
Crosstabs Year of establishment Total In regard of the first research question, results indicate a rather low
<1990 1990–2000 2000–2010 and mediocre respondence to the core approaches, as presented and
Knowledge of CE YES 19 7 0 26 suggested by both theoretical and empirical literature, so far (e.g.
NO 2 1 1 4
Geissdoerfer et al., 2016; European Environment Agency, 2017;
Total 21 8 1 30
Chi-SquareTests Value df Asymptotic Trigkas et al., 2018). More importantly, it appears that Greek leaders
Significance (2- approach the CE in rather superficial ways. They seem to have related
sided) the CE to recycling procedures of products and materials, mainly for
Pearson Chi-Square 6.77 2 .034
reuse purposes and more precisely for energy production and waste
Likelihood Ratio 4.32 2 .115
Linear-by-Linear 2.68 1 .102
management; such activities actually correspond to the phase before
Association the final disposal of the remaining waste. This indicates lack of deep
knowledge and specific information on CE issues within well-estab-
lished companies. This may result from a weak belief in CE in general, a
include raw materials extraction – production process – distribution non-existent commitment to a real shift and low investment decision
–use - disposal and waste management (Fiksel, 2006). making – mostly within the corporate responsibility framework. No
Regarding the grouping of the main practices adopted by the par- matter the reason, the results indicate that the shift to the CE was not a
ticipated companies, the main factors that emerged (loadings min=0.3) core strategy of the leaders but rather a way to cover environmental
(Siomkos and Vasilikopoulou, 2005; Wieland et al., 2017) are presented issues next to their main activities, either due to legislation or due to
in Tables 7and 8. Our analysis revealed four key factors, of total var- corporate responsibility. This is quite expected from companies who are
iance accounted for by each factor to be presented in Table 8. The leading the Greek economy and thus, do not look for alternative stra-
cumulative percentage of variance accounted is 75.06%, meaning that tegies to grow. It parallels to the refusal of big American U.S. manu-
the first four factors together account for 75.06% of the total variance. facturers to understand and adopt Deming's quality control philosophy
Hence, the key components describing the main practices of the Greek after the second world war; auto companies were thriving at that time
industries for implementing the CE could be grouped as 1) use of ma- and the whole quality management issue was misunderstood. However,
terials for energy purposes and waste management, 2) efficient use of if history teaches anything, Japan's emerging auto industry accepted
resources and raw materials, 3) reduction of waste generation and 4) and implemented Deming's ideas and became legitimate contenders as
adoption of other sustainable manufacturing techniques (Table 9). American products suffered with quality issues around the 1970s.
The content reliability analysis of the above key components in- On the other side, the majority of the sampled firms appear to start
dicates that the detected determinants constitute concrete and reliable incorporating in their culture the core role of the environmental impact
structures which can contribute to the measurement of the specific of product life-cycles and the potential of reuse, at least, even if this
factor, since they are close or over 0.7 (Siomkos and done due to the above-mentioned reasons. Such culture is not common
Vasilikopoulou, 2005). Thus, for the use of materials for energy pur- among Greeks and Greek companies and may be opening a way to
poses and waste management, the overall Cronbach's a = 0.878 which better approaches of the CE issues. This can be explained by the cor-
leads us to the conclusion that the reliability of the scale we used is relations (Table 6) of the purchase of products and raw materials with
quite high. For each of the 5 determinants (items) (see Table 9) de- ecological certifications to product life-cycle analysis and the recovery
scribing this main strategy, the Cronbach's alpha equals 0.840, 0.821, of valuable materials correlation to the reuse and eco-friendly design of
0.872, 0.847, 0.875 respectively. Similar are the results for the rest of products.
the factors we used in our analysis for describing the main practices of Combining the answers of the two first research questions, im-
the surveyed industries (Table 9). plementation of the CE practices, such as waste minimization and
Regarding the CE and related supporting policies and according to management, and more precisely, waste utilization for energy produc-
the results (Table 10), the major supporting policies that appeared to be tion, material flow analysis in the production process and product life-
significant for the respondents are mainly the funding for innovation cycle analysis, seems to be valued and implemented in relation to
such as the EU Framework Program for Research and Innovation, or co- specific legal requirements or imposed environmental policies. On the
funded projects, financial organizations, etc. (4,27 ± 0.58) and tech- contrary, culture appears to impact negatively any type of sharing-
nical support for the development of specific CE projects (4,13 ± 0.73) based practices. Furthermore, the adoption of specific sustainable
with public support such as project financing or financial guaranties for manufacturing techniques, although significant and “in the close fu-
private investment to finance projects favoring a transition to the CE ture”, may be impeded by the lack of technical skills and relevant
(4,10 ± 0.80) to follow. Surveyed businesses seem further to justify the capabilities and consequently the inability to identify, assess and im-
importance of political cohesion as an integral factor in the CE. More plement the proper technical options that would facilitate a shift to the
specifically, Table 10 presents the supporting policies that leaders deem CE. This is quite expected; in accordance with relevant literature, even
significant and appropriate to encourage the business world make a big players rely on the recommendations of external factors, such as
shift to the CE. technology providers and consultants (Caloghirou et al., 2010), which
It is quite evident that projects supported by European funding are a means investments and thus commitment of valuable resources. It is
key tool for promoting the CE in enterprises even in cases of national expected that the extent to which firms are generally willing to adopt
leaders. This can be justified by the required investments for the such practices depends further on the industrial sector in which these

5
M. Trigkas, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 163 (2020) 105092

Table 6
Correlation of procedures for the implementation of CE by the Greek leaders.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Waste utilization for energy production 1

Disposal of solid waste in special concentration ,466** 1
areas for transfer to sanitary landfill
Biofuel production ,458* ,214 1
Recovery of valuable materials and reuse ,374* ,047 ,182 1
Remanufacturing or repairing useful products -,048 -,031 ,320 ,319 1
Purchase of products and raw materials with ,561** ,402* ,291 ,473** ,280 1
ecological certifications
Disposal of raw material to other enterprise and ,613** ,265 ,638** ,393* ,068 ,282 1
industries
Recycling of materials/ products / energy ,339 ,255 -,038 ,396* ,268 ,449* ,022 1
Product life-cycle analysis ,568** ,419* ,386* ,538** ,288 ,785** ,278 ,452* 1
Development of product design with subsystems ,562** ,350 ,416* ,388* ,198 ,546** ,519⁎⁎ ,013 ,619** 1
Use of highly efficient mechanical equipment for ,822** ,393* ,272 ,475** -,027 ,564** ,558⁎⁎ ,420* ,498** ,354 1
optimal resource utilization
Material flow analysis in the production process ,776** ,192 ,591** ,577** ,180 ,497** ,727⁎⁎
,253 ,550** ,575** ,800** 1
Eco-friendly design of products ,526** ,232 ,441* ,617** ,509** ,725** ,404* ,354 ,755** ,575** ,542** ,658** 1
Sharing assets operations ,560** ,398* ,214 ,448* ,101 ,400* ,410* ,136 ,599** ,689** ,419* ,470** ,527** 1
Sharing consuming ,126 ,184 ,136 ,387* ,324 ,292 ,053 ,176 ,418* ,110 ,039 -,033 ,268 ,362* 1

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

firms operate (Bradford and Fraser, 2008); however, this cannot be
decided by the present research.
Greek industry leaders and mainly S.A.s, are in their majority en-
gaged in the CE-era, have acknowledged the CE-challenges and have
started the shift journey, although they seem to be still in their very
beginning and not ready for a total shift to the CE. They also appear to
take advantage of specific mechanisms provided by the Greek National
Strategy on CE issues especially regarding funding mechanisms, public
investment and financing tools with aids and tax-reliefs. It should be
mentioned that, following the European CE policy tools, the National
Strategy sets several other priorities for action within the 4Rs frame-
work, as well as incentives and enablers too, such as the development of
concrete communicative strategies to raise citizens’ awareness
(Hellenic Ministry of Environment and Energy, 2018); however, it ap-
pears that there is no systemic approach, while the government-in-
dustry collaboration on such issues seems to be non-existent.
The present research revealed significant gaps between beliefs and
real implementation of the CE by Greek leading companies. It is quite
evident that the CE values and principles are treated more as environ-
mental responsibility that a new way of making business. Greek leaders
believe in and implement practices regarding recycling and waste and,
especially, waste management appears to have set a course following
the EU policies. On the contrary, they seem to reject eco-design and any
type of sharing economy; for different reasons. Eco-friendly design re-
quires commitment of significant resources regarding human capital,
skills and capabilities, changes in manufacturing practices, conforma-
tion to the European Standardization Organizations and satisfy certain
criteria of durability, reusability, reparability, recyclability and the
presence of critical raw materials. On the other hand, the sharing
economy is far against common beliefs, attitudes and culture of Greek
leading CEOs.
Such strategic decisions regard, therefore, typical major adjustments
but they are quite difficult ones for leaders whose profits appear to
come from their established policies.
The research indicates that the Greek business environment is not
ready for such shifts. Large leading organizations seem to trust EU
funding projects regarding R&D and technical support but are rather
skeptical regarding promotion and support of novel innovative models
and systems as well as cross-sector cooperation and soft skills. This may
be due to the lack of any systemic approach for the transition to CE,
involving both economic actors and society, which could be supported
by the government and could rely on an enabling environment for
partnerships along value chains and across sectors. Administrative
burdens and bureaucracy stand between EU promising policies and

Table 7
Rotated component matrix of the leaders’ main strategies for CE.
Determinants Component
1 2 3 4

Disposal of raw materials to other enterprise and industries .855 .048 .163 .006
Material flow analysisin the production process .853 .439 .062 .099
Biofuel production .748 −0.137 .117 .306
Waste utilization for energy production .652 .478 .423 −0.156
Development of product design with subsystems .610 .027 .517 .212
Recycling of materials/ products / energy −0.139 .848 .089 .168
Use of highly efficient mechanical equipment for optimal resource utilization .563 .691 .210 −0.173
Purchase of products and raw materials with ecological certifications .270 .583 .425 .308
Recovery of valuable materials and reuse .324 .504 ,136 .489
Disposal of solid waste in special concentration areas for transfer to sanitary landfill .118 .206 .750 −0.221
Sharing resources operations .375 .121 .706 .158
Sharing consuming −0.192 .023 .574 .556
Product life-cycle analysis .294 .480 .567 .399
Remanufacturing or repairing of useful products .078 .088 −0.075 .855
Eco-friendly design of products .476 .459 .251 .547

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

6
M. Trigkas, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 163 (2020) 105092

Table 8
Total variance of key strategies for CE by the Greek leaders. .
Total variance explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative% Total % of Variance Cumulative% Total % of Variance Cumulative%

1 6.762 45.077 45.077 6.762 45.077 45.077 3.648 24.319 24.319

2 1.865 12.434 57.512 1.865 12.434 57.512 2.752 18.348 42.666
3 1.415 9.435 66.946 1.415 9.435 66.946 2.677 17.849 60.515
4 1.218 8.119 75.065 1.218 8.119 75.065 2.182 14.550 75.065
5 .902 6.016 81.081
6 .792 5.283 86.363
7 .516 3.441 89.804
8 .369 2.458 92.263
9 .342 2.283 94.546
10 .269 1.793 96.339
11 .197 1.316 97.654
12 .130 .864 98.518
13 .116 .772 99.290
14 .064 .430 99.720
15 .042 .280 100.000

incentives and the will and decision to adopt a CE model. This finding Table 10
contradicts literature, where it is usually assumed that large companies Importance of CE supporting policies for the Greek leaders .
can apply environmental rules easier than SMEs and that they do not CE supporting policies Mean Std. Deviation
feel threatened by the lack of sound government support and effective
legislation. The reasons may be different, but uncertainty is a sig- Funding of innovations related to CE 4.27 0.58
nificant cause of hesitation. The Greek industrial leaders have set the Support of CE projects 4.13 0.73
Public incentives to private investors for funding projects 4.10 0.80
groundwork for a transition to the CE, but they seem to feel rather
in favor of CE
vulnerable in shifting to pure CE models and practices. A switch to a CE Promotion of innovative business models for CE 3.93 0.83
model may sound promising but it appears that companies in need are Special measures for the adoption of CE among SME's 3.83 0.83
those that would make it and not the leaders. Promoting the development of skills/qualifications/ 3.83 0.79
capabilities related to the CE
Therefore, the study indicates that Greek leaders need to delve into
Supporting innovative systemic business approaches and 3.80 0.85
the CE new era, make relevant strategic decisions towards suitable CE cross-sector cooperation
models, and decide on the commitment of resources and on the impact Supporting the entrance of innovative projects in 3.77 0.73
in the market. There seem to be significant adjustments to be made markets through certification and standardization
even for leaders that claim a shift to the CE such as eco-design and Exchange and promotion of best practices 3.70 0.75
Improvement of knowledge base on the CE by collection 3.67 0.71
manufacturing for the extension of products life cycle and the devel-
and provision of data/information
opment of innovative and competitive products, following a sustainable
management of resources. Thus, regarding the third research question *n = 30 cases.
(Q3), we argue that the Greek leaders seem to be at the very beginning
of the CE journey and need to invest more in CE practices in order to be suit them. The investigation of them constitutes a significant area of
adjusted to national and EU policies for the transition to the CE. further research.
Furthermore, leading companies need a quite different approach and In this vein, certain questions need to be answered before funding
enablers than SMEs to switch to a circular business model that would and other type of initiatives are launched in favor of leading companies.

Table 9
Reliability analysis of the determinants (items) of main CE implementation strategies .
No. Factor Overall Cronbach's a Determinants Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted

1 Use of materials for energy purposes and waste 0.878 Disposal of raw material to other enterprises and industries 0.840
management Material flow analysis in the production process 0.821
Biofuel production 0.872
Waste utilization for energy production 0.847
Development of product design with subsystems 0.875
2 Efficient use of resources and raw materials 0.776 Purchase of products and raw materials with ecological 0.694
certifications
Recycling of materials/ products / energy 0.753
Use of highly efficient mechanical equipment for optimal 0.701
resource utilization
Recovery of valuable materials and reuse 0.733
3 Reduction of waste generation 0.717 Disposal of solidwaste in special concentration areas for 0.712
transfer to sanitarylandfill
Sharing resources operations 0.602
Sharing consuming 0.715
Product life-cycle analysis 0.563
4 Adoption of other sustainable manufacturing 0.674 Remanufacturing or repairing of useful products
techniques Eco-friendly design of products

7
M. Trigkas, et al.
Policymakers should first map the ways that - mainly – well established
firms perceive recyclability of products or the circular economy in
general and how they understand the adjustments needed for the shift
to the CE. While it appears that business managers and leaders ac-
knowledge the value of the importance of the CE, there is still sig-
nificant confusion about the exact meaning of the CE, its value loops,
and CE principles’ strategic implementation into value chain manage-
ment. The comparison of the efforts of the leading companies with the
framework for action proposed by the Commission and best practices
around Europe can facilitate policymakers in the provision of essential
adjustments for large, well-established, leading companies at least in
Greece. Such adjustments can refer to engagement incentives, specific
funding tools, market communication, synergies, innovation and ac-
quisition of knowledge and know-how on the appropriate technologies,
processes, business models and similar. According to our findings,
policy measures should support several major CE-shift issues such as the
common use of resources, the promotion of industrial symbiosis, the
sharing consumption and eco-design of products, which are rather low
in ranking regarding their incorporation in the business models of the
Greek leading enterprises. Furthermore, it appears that mis-
understanding, hesitation, lack of knowledge and information should be
approached in appropriate manner for the established incumbents, who
usually are investing in sustainable activities in incremental ways
mainly to support the incremental needs of their customers or to con-
form with relevant regulations and legislation. A suggestion could be,
the organization of well-prepared sector-specific campaigns, while a
minimum of relevant knowledge on CE practices and some official
commitment to switching to CE companies could be a prerequisite for
any form of funding or other facilitation. Similarly, to other trends (e.g.
quality management as mentioned before or disruptive innovation)
large organizations and especially national leaders are those that
cannot easily realize that, the CE is “an irreversible, global, mega trend”
(European Commission, 2019).
5. Conclusion
The purpose of the present research was to investigate how Greek
leading companies react to the CE so far. For that purpose, the research
purported to: a) investigate the ways that Greek leading companies try
to implement circular economy principles, in view of procedures,
practices and measures; and b) identify the level of adjustment to
specific proposed national directives and EU policies, which are con-
sidered the minimum ones for a shift to the CE and thus, to identify and
propose main adjustments and ways for policy-makers to engage big
national leaders to the CE movement. For the research sample, the
organizations were selected from the 200 most profitable businesses
based on earnings before taxes (TOP 200), as listed in the annual
business publication “The strongest of the Greek economy”
(Direction Business Network, 2014) with the further criterion to have
engaged any type of CE principles.
The research reveals that besides the development of a considerable
number of policy measures and instruments at EU level for the facil-
itation of the CE implementation, leading Greek companies fail to
switch to any CE model (existent or new one). They just adapt or de-
velop specific CE procedures and policies that better suit their existing
business activities or are commonly recognized as environmentally
necessary such as waste minimization and management. An inter-
pretation of their values, beliefs and actions as analyzed in the dis-
cussion section may be that such organizations fail to value the CE
principles and the new CE-era properly because they are still working
within existing markets and their mature value networks and thus,
managers act in the best fiduciary interests. A shift to the CE under this
view is, at first glance, prohibitive for their cost structures, leads to a
low ROI (Return of Investment) and shrinkage of their markets, as seen
by the decision-makers. Furthermore, established culture and ways of
markets confrontation are more difficult to change in well-established
8
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 163 (2020) 105092
organizations. The insights gained, the tendencies revealed, and the
identified adjustment gaps can be of help for national or even EU pol-
icymakers, in order to devise CE policy measures and frameworks for
large leading organizations, at national level at least.
The study bears some limitations; first, a larger sample of partici-
pating firms could produce more representative and robust results and
second, the study reflects the Greek business environment and thus a
very specific socioeconomic framework, especially when considering
the severe socioeconomic crisis and its heavy impact in the business
world. Furthermore, a sector-specific analysis would allow for a more
fruitful discussion as each industry sets diverse priority issues along
their value chains.
Besides the limitations, the present paper starts a dialog challenging
the widespread perception that “in market economies, the business firm
is clearly the leading player in the development and commercialization
of new products and processes” (Teece 1996, p.193). As indicated in
literature review, there is extremely limited empirical evidence on if
and how large national organizations switch to CE models. The shift to
the CE, so far, appears to be easier for start-ups and SMEs which are
more flexible in changing strategies and value networks. The study
uncovers the difficulty of leading national business, that sometimes
serve mainly national markets, to embrace the innovativeness of the CE
and their positioning to encounter the emergent CE issue which points
to the need of different approaches by policymakers. This is actually the
study's main contribution to both the empirical and theoretical area on
the CE concept. It highlights the vulnerability of large national leading
companies in such radical transitions, their selective strategic choices,
the insecurity and confusion they feel, and the adjustments needed in
order to decide a transition to CE.
The findings seem to open new opportunities for further research
around the engagement of large well-established organizations in the
CE. Suggested research could be the investigation of the exact barriers
and enablers for mature well-established incumbents, the reasons that
market leaders and incumbents fail to seize the CE wave in their re-
spective industries, ways to change their culture, processes
(Christensen, 2013) and especially values which constitute the criteria
for prioritization decisions (Gans, 2016). Theoretical research can ex-
tent to the exploration of the technological and the institutional factors
which can facilitate the creation of non-rivalrous business models that
can contribute to the engagement of such incumbents in the CE with the
promise of further economic development. Similarly, field research
could provide insights for larger populations at national level or com-
pare relevant populations in different countries or socioeconomic sys-
tems. Qualitative research could also explore the way international
large organizations view, organize and implement a switch to the cir-
cular economy.
Furthermore, similar research should be applied to Greek SMEs, in
order to investigate their transition towards the CE, find similarities and
differences and suggest complementarities and synergies. Comparison
with best practices across Europe is also encouraged. Researchers could
further explore the industry view against the consumer view since
strong stakeholder engagement is considered a core building block of
the CE. It would be very interesting to examine the existence and the
stage of implementation of specific circular business models such as
resource recovery, circular supplies and product life extension along
with material flow analysis approaches and compare investments costs
and benefits. It makes sense to consider the quantity and characteristics
of materials/resources and categories of their importance for uses. This
categorical approach might also suggest where recycling might be ap-
plied.
The circular economy is today thought to be the catalyst for the
existing linear production's model reconstruction of economies, based
on efficient use of resources, industrial symbiosis, use of secondary
materials and wastes as productive resources giving a sustainable di-
mension of doing business, rather than the take-make-dispose produc-
tive model of the Greek enterprises. The research has located a number
M. Trigkas, et al.
of strong and weak issues studying the leading companies in Greece and
opening the discussion on the specificities of leading businesses at na-
tional level that want to switch to a CE model. Hence, transition to CE is
actually a technological procedure in nature, including both positive
and negative consequences and it should be addressed as such through
appropriate technological developments, business perspectives and
policies involved, at the business level, at least. Especially regarding
large well-established national organizations, a multidisciplinary ap-
proach is necessary which should include change management and
corporate culture and mindset. Such organizations need a comprehen-
sive framework and a cohesive implementation strategy with inclusive
approach on stakeholder interests to support a successful transition
from the well-known, familiar and profitable (for the leaders) linear to
CE.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This manuscript is a revisited version of the original one under the
title “Circular Economy. The Way the Greek Industry Leaders do it”,
submitted to the 12th Annual Euromed Academy of Business (ΕΜΑΒ)
Conference “Business Management Theories and Practices in a Dynamic
Competitive Environment” Thessaloniki, Greece, September 18–20,
2019.
References
Bag, S., Gupta, S., Foropon, C., 2019. Examining the role of dynamic remanufacturing
capability on supply chain resilience in circular economy. Management Decision 57
(4), 863–885.
Bakker, C., Wang, F., Huisman, J., Den Hollander, M., 2014. Products that go round:
exploring product life extension through design. J Clean Prod 69, 10–16.
Baldassarre, B., Schepers, M., Bocken, N., Cuppen, E., Korevaar, G., Calabretta, G., 2019.
Industrial symbiosis: towards a design process for eco-industrial clusters by in-
tegrating circular economy and industrial ecology perspectives panel. J. Clean. Prod.
216, 446–460.
Bauwens, F., Mees, R., Gerards, M., Van Dune, J., Friedl, H., Von Daniels, C., ... &
Kirchherr, J.W., 2020. Disruptors: how circular start-ups can accelerate the circular
economy transition.
Borrello, M., Caracciolo, F., Lombardi, A., Pascucci, S., Cembalo, L., 2017. Consumers’
perspective on circular economy strategy for reducing food waste. Sustainability 9
(1), 141.
Bradford, J., Fraser, D., 2008. Local authorities, climate change and small and medium
enterprises: identifying effective policy instruments to reduce energy use and carbon
emissions. Corporate Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 15 (3), 156–172.
Caloghirou, C., 2010. SMEs and the Environment in the European Union. EU.
Christensen, C.M., 2013. The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great
Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
Cook, C., Heath, F., Thompson, L., 2000. A meta-analysis of response rates in web-or
internet-based surveys. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 60 (6), 821–836.
Dieterle, M., Schäfer, P., Viere, T., 2018. Life Cycle Gaps: interpreting LCA results with a
circular economy mindset. Procedia CIRP 69, 764–768.
Direction Business Network, 2014. The Strongest of the Greek Economy. Direction
Business Network, Athens.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013. Towards the circular economy. Oppor. Consum.
Goods Sector. 2.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015. Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision For a
Competitive Europe. McKinsey Center for Business and Environment.
European Commission, 2015. Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the circular
economy. In: Communication From The Commission To The European Parliament,
The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of
The Regions. COM (2015) 614 final.
European Commission, 2017. Report from the commission to the European parliament.
In: The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee
Of The Regions On The Implementation Of The Circular Economy Action Plan. COM
(2017) 33 final.
European Commission, 2019. Report from the commission to the European parliament.
In: The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee
Of The Regions On The Implementation Of The Circular Economy Action Plan. COM
(2019) 190 final.
9
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 163 (2020) 105092
European Commission, 2020. Communication from the Commission to the European
parliament. In: The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The
Committee Of The Regions. A New Circular Economy Action Plan. For A Cleaner And
More Competitive Europe Brussels. COM (2020) 98 final.
European Environment Agency, 2016. Circular economy in Europe. developing the
knowledge base. EEA Report No 2/2016, Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg.
European Environment Agency, 2017. Circular by Design. Products in the Circular
Economy. EEA Report No 6/2017, Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg.
Ferdousi, F., Qiang, D., 2016. Implementing circular economy and its impact on consumer
ecological behavior. J. Innov. Sustain. 7 (1), 3–10.
Fernández-Viñé, B., Gómez-Navarro, T., Capuz-Rizo, F., 2010. Eco-efficiency in the SME
of Venezuela. Current status and future perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 736–746.
Fiksel, J., 2006. A framework for sustainable materials management. JOM: J. Miner.,
Metals & Mater. Soc. 58 (8), 15–22.
Franco, M., 2019. A system dynamics approach to product design and business model
strategies for the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 241, 118327.
Gans, J., 2016. The Disruption Dilemma. MIT press.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N., Jan Hultink, E., 2016. The circular economy - a
new sustainability paradism? J. Clean. Prod. 14, 757–768.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the expected
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic system. J. Clean.
Prod. 114, 11–32.
Gusmerotti, M., Testa, F., Corsini, F., Pretner, G., Iraldo, F., 2019. Drivers and approaches
to the circular economy in manufacturing firms. J. Clean. Prod. 230, 314–327.
Haupt, M., Hellweg, S., 2019. Measuring the environmental sustainability of a circular
economy. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 1–2.
Hazen, T., Mollenkopf, A., Wang, Y., 2017. Remanufacturing for the circular economy: an
examination of consumer switching behavior. Bus. Strat. Environ. 26 (4), 451–464.
Hellenic Republic, Ministry of Environment & Energy, 2018. National circular economy
strategy. Athens.
Horne, E., 2009. Limits to labels: the role of eco‐labels in the assessment of product
sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 33 (2),
175–182.
Howitt, D., Cramer, D., 2003. Statistics With SPSS 11 For WINDOWS. Kleidarithmos,
Athens.
Jawahir, S., Bradley, R., 2016. Technological elements of circular economy and the
principles of 6R-based closed-loop material flow in sustainable manufacturing.
Procedia Cirp 40, 103–108.
Karagouni, G., 2018. Circular bioeconomy: do we really need another Concept? In: 11th
Annual Conference of the EuroMed Academy of Business. Valetta, Malta. ISBN: 978-
9963-711-67-3.
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., Seppälä, J., 2018. Circular economy: the concept and its
limitations. Ecol. Econ. 143, 37–46.
Lieder, M., Rashid, A., 2016. Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehen-
sive review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 115, 36–51.
MacArthur, E., 2013. Towards the circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 2, 23–44.
Mair, C., Stern, T., 2017. Cascading utilization of wood: a matter of circular economy?
Curr. Forestry Rep. 3 (4), 281–295.
Malinauskaite, J., Jouhara, H., Czajczyńska, D., Stanchev, P., Katsou, E., Rostkowski, P.,
Anguilano, L., 2017. Municipal solid waste management and waste-to-energy in the
context of a circular economy and energy recycling in Europe. Energy 141,
2013–2044.
Mantese, C., Bianchi, J., Amaral, C., 2018. The industrial symbiosis in the product de-
velopment: an approach through the DFIS. Procedia Manuf. 21, 862–869.
Mavroudis, Α, 2018. Circular Economy and Tourism. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
Thessaloniki.
Melece, L., 2016. Challenges and opportunities of circular economy and green economy.
In: Engineering for Rural Development conference. Jelgava. pp. 1162–1169 25.-
27.05.2016.
Mestre, A., Cooper, T., 2017. Circular product design. A multiple loops life cycle design
approach for the circular economy. Design J. 20, 1620–1635.
Moraga, G., Huysvel, S., Mathieux, F., Blengini, A., Alaerts, L., Van Acker, K., de Meeste,
S., Dewulf, J., 2019. Circular economy indicators: what do they measure? Resources.
Conserv. Recycl. 146, 452–461.
Mortensen, L., Kørnøv, L., 2019. Critical factors for industrial symbiosis emergence
process. J. Clean. Prod. 212, 56–69.
Muranko, Z., Andrews, D., Chaer, I., Newton, E., 2019. Circular economy and behaviour
change: using persuasive communication to encourage pro-circular behaviours to-
wards the purchase of remanufactured refrigeration equipment. J Clean Prod 222,
499–510.
Niero, M., Kalbar, P., 2019. Coupling material circularity indicators and life cycle based
indicators: a proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at the
product level. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 140, 305–312.
Norusis, M., 2007. A Guide of Data Analysis With SPSS 12.0. Kleidarithmos, Athens.
Pantazopoulou, E., Zebiliadou, O., Bartzas, G., Xenidis, A., Zouboulis, A., Komnitsas, K.,
2015. Industrial solid waste management in Greece: the current situation and pro-
spects for valorization. J. Solid Waste Technol. Manag. 41, 383–394.
Papadopoulou, K., Alonso Vicario, A., Niakas, S., Melanitou, E., Lytras, C., Kornaros, M.,
Lyberatos, G., 2017. Life cycle thinking, the key for a circular economy: the muni-
cipality of Halandri case. In: 15th International Conference on Environmental Science
and Technology. Rhodes, Greece. 1/8 - 2/9/2017.
Phillips, W., Reddy, S., Durning, J., 2016. Improving response rates and evaluating
nonresponse bias in surveys: AMEE Guide No. 102. Med. Teach. 38 (3), 217–228.
Pieroni, Μ., McAloone, Τ., Pigosso, D., 2019. Business model innovation for circular
M. Trigkas, et al.
economy and sustainability: a review of approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 215, 198–216.
Planing, P., 2015. Business model innovation in a circular economy reasons for non-ac-
ceptance of circular business models. Open J. Bus. Model. Innov. 1 (11).
Rios, De los, C., Charnley, J., 2017. Skills and capabilities for a sustainable and circular
economy: the changing role of design. J Clean. Prod. 160, 109–122.
Ritzén, S., Sandström, Ö., 2017. Barriers to the circular economy–integration of per-
spectives and domains. Procedia CIRP 64, 7–12.
...Rizos, V., Behrens, A., Van der Gaast, W., Hofman, E., Ioannou, A., Kafyeke, T., Topi, C.,
2016. Implementation of circular economy business models by small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs): barriers and enablers. Sustainability 8 (11), 1212.
Siomkos, G., Vasilikopoulou, Α, 2005. Implementation of Analysis Methods in Market
Research. Stamoulis, Athens.
Stewart, R., Niero, M., 2018. Circular economy in corporate sustainability strategies: a
review of corporate sustainability reports in the fast-moving consumer goods sector.
Bus. Strat. Environ. 27, 1005–1022.
Teece, J., 1996. Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation. J.
Econ. Behav. Organ. 31 (2), 193–224.
10
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 163 (2020) 105092
Trigkas, M., Itsos, G., Lazaridou, D., 2018. Investigation of factors affecting consumers'
awareness on circular economy: preliminary evidence from Greece. J. Reg. Socio-
Econ. Issues 8, 47–57.
Tukker, A., 2015. Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy - a re-
view. J. Clean. Prod. 97, 76–91.
Wee, Y.S., Quzhi, H.A., 2005. Development and validation of critical factors of environ-
mental management. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 105, 96–114.
Welfens, P., Bleischwitz, R., Geng, Y., 2017. Resource efficiency, circular economy and
sustainability dynamics in China and OECD countries. Int. Econ. Econ. Policy 14,
355–382.
Wieland, A., Durach, F., Kembro, J., Treiblmaier, H., 2017. Statistical and judgmental
criteria for scale purification. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 22 (4), 321–328.
Winans, K., Kendall, A., Deng, H., 2017. The history and current applications of the
circular economy concept. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 68, 825–833.
Zucchella, A., 2019. Circular entrepreneurship in action: the born circular firms. Circular
Entrepreneurship. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp. 89–130.