See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343318629

circular economy and innovation ecosystems the case of the Italian Circular
Economy Stakeholder Platform

Conference Paper · July 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 554

5 authors, including:

Pasquale Del Vecchio Giuseppina Passiante

Università LUM Università del Salento
107 PUBLICATIONS 3,177 CITATIONS 103 PUBLICATIONS 3,444 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Grazia Barberio Carolina Innella

ENEA ENEA
35 PUBLICATIONS 584 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 169 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Carolina Innella on 30 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

Circular Economy and Innovation Ecosystems: the

case of the Italian Circular Economy Stakeholder
Platform - ICESP

Pasquale Del Vecchio *

Department of Engineering for Innovation
University of Salento
Ed. Aldo Romano, Campus Ecotekne, Via per Monteroni sn, 73100
Lecce
E-mail: pasquale.delvecchio@unisalento.it

Giuseppina Passiante
Department of Engineering for Innovation
University of Salento
Ed. Aldo Romano, Campus Ecotekne, Via per Monteroni sn, 73100
Lecce
E-mail: giuseppina.passiante@unisalento.it

Grazia Barberio
ENEA, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development
Department for Sustainability (SSPT) - Casaccia Research Centre
Via Anguillarese, 301 - 00123 Roma
Email: grazia.barberio@enea.it

Roberta De Carolis
ENEA, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development
Department for Sustainability (SSPT) - Casaccia Research Centre
Via Anguillarese, 301 - 00123 Roma
Email: roberta.decarolis@enea.it

Carolina Innella
ENEA, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development
Department for Sustainability (SSPT) - Trisaia Research Centre
SS 106 Jonica, Km 419,500, 75026 Rotondella (MT)
Email: carolina.innella@enea.it

* Corresponding author

1
 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

Abstract

The paper contributes at the debate on circular economy as emerging

paradigm aimed to promote sustainable development patterns, by focusing
on the issues of the innovation ecosystems and quintuple helix. Despite the
topic of innovation results to be intrinsically linked to the paradigm of
circular economy and the dimension of environmental sustainability is
more and more recognized crucial into the debate on innovation
ecosystems through the quintuple helix, the exploration of their meaning
and dynamics in the perspective of circular economy is under-researched
and calls for a deeper comprehension. Framed in the above premises, this
paper presents the evidences of a single and extreme case study related to
the Italian Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform (ICESP), as good
practice of a digital platform for stakeholders’ engagement supporting the
creation of an innovation ecosystem focused on the circular economy.

Keywords: Circular Economy, Innovation Ecosystem, Quintuple Helix,

Digital Platforms, Stakeholders, ICESP

Nature of the proposed paper: Academic Research Paper

1. Introduction

Circular Economy is one of the most relevant trend topics in the public
debate (Urbinati et al., 2017). As a branch of sustainability science aimed
to reduce environmental impacts and promote sustainable patterns of
development (Miliute-Plepiene & Plepys, 2015; Schneider, 2015; Haas et
al., 2015), Circular Economy is recalling the interest of a large community
of scholars and researchers interested into the exploration of its meaning
and dynamics both at level of companies (Mylan et al., 2016) and
governments (Grundel and Dahlström, 2016; Geng et al., 2009).
According to Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015), Circular Economy aims
to redefine patterns of growth, focusing on positive society-wide benefits,
by gradually decoupling economic activity from the consumption of finite
resources, and designing waste out of the system. It is strongly recognized
as a way of sustainable growth in respect of environmental, and societal

2
 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

patterns with several implications also for regional and industrial

development (Ghisellini, et al., 2016; Urbinati et al., 2017).
It is in this perspective that the conception and execution of actions and
strategies of circular economy by private and public organizations recall
the contribution of a plurality of stakeholders and this requires
collaboration and shared values.
Despite the topic of innovation results to be intrinsically linked to the
paradigm of Circular Economy, very few studies have explored its
meaning and dynamic in the perspective of systems of innovation.
In the meantime, while the dimension of environmental sustainability
results to be well recognized into the debate on innovation ecosystems
(Etzkowitz, and Ranga, 2015), such as into the Quintuple Helix model
through the helix of natural and environmental transitions (Grundel and
Dahlström, 2016; Romano et al., 2014; Carayannis and Campbell, 2009),
the research in this field has missed to understand how innovation
ecosystems can support the development of processes of value creation in
line with the principles of Circular Economy. As knowledge intensive and
collaborative heterogeneous networks of actors supporting the creation of
sustainable innovation (Etzkowitz and Ranga, 2015; Romano et al., 2014;
Carayannis and Campbell, 2009), innovation ecosystems can play an
important role in catalysing flows of knowledge in the domain of circular
economy, also thanks to the embracement of virtual platforms. Web
technologies and digital platforms have enhanced the opportunities of
value creation into the innovation ecosystems by making more effective
and rapid the processes of knowledge creation, absorption and diffusion
(Romano et al., 2014; Muntaner-Perich and de la Rosa, 2007).
In allowing the creation of a bridge between knowledge inside the
organisations and knowledge outside the organisations, innovation
ecosystems are favourable locus for value creation (Borin and Donato,
2015; Dumay, 2013). Also in this perspective, it is necessary to investigate
which are the main characteristics and in which way a digital platform can
support the creation of an innovation ecosystems for the achievement of
goals related to the Circular Economy.
Framed in the above premises, this paper aims to offer an integrated
reading and a contribution of systematization at the intersection of the
research on Circular Economy and Innovation Ecosystems in the
perspective of Quintuple Helix through the study of the Italian Circular
Economy Stakeholder Platform (ICESP), as extreme case study of a
platform based ecosystem of stakeholders specialized into the domain of
circular economy.

3
 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

The paper presents several elements of original contribution in terms of an

integrated reading of well debated issues, such as Circular Economy and
Innovation Ecosystems, as well as of the empirical evidences of ICESP, as
relevant empirical context of analysis related to collaborative dynamics of
innovation inspired at the model of Quintuple Helix and focused in the
domain of Circular Economy.
The remaining of the paper is structured as follows: the literature
background presents the theoretical pillars of study in terms of Circular
Economy, Innovation Ecosystems and Quintuple Helix. In the section 3,
the methodological approach is presented; the section 4 presents the
evidences related to the case study at ICESP and in the paragraph 5. the
conclusions and implications for theory and practice are presented.

2. Literature background

2.1 Circular Economy and stakeholders’ involvement

Circular Economy is one of the most actual issue of the current public
debate (Urbinati, et al., 2017). It has been identified as a promising source
of solutions at the challenges associated to the sustainable development
goals identified by the United Nations (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018), since it
is based on the assumption that products and resources continue to
circulate in closed loops by minimizing waste, emission, and costs (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2013; Ranta, et al., 2018). Indeed, circular
economy suggests the shift from linear model of production and
consumption to circular ones able to preserve environmental and economic
value within the system (Nuβholz, 2018).
Different schools of thought have inspired the current theorization of the
Circular Economy (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018), such as the regenerative
design (Lyle, 1994), Industrial Ecology (Graedel and Allenby, 1995),
Ecosystem metaphor (Su et al., 2013), Looped and performance economy
(Stahel, 2010), Industrial symbiosis (Chertow, 2000). The debate on
Circular Economy continues to be fluorescent and populated by different
perspectives of studies aimed to deepen meaning, dynamics and
implications of circular economy at level of single companies, industries,
public organizations, urban areas and territories (Innella et al., 2017;
Cappellaro et al., 2019). In such a context, the study of the business model
for the circular economy is one of the most actual, mainly for what
concerns the value creation and its determinants (Urbinati et al., 2017;
Ranta, et al., 2018). A circular business model incorporates all the

4
 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

“elements that slow, narrow, and close resource loops” (Geissdoerfer et al.,
2018, pp. 191). As result of the application of Circular Economy principles
into the functioning of a business model, it requires to reserve a particular
attention at some sustainable issues such as the sustainable nature of value,
a long term perspective and the growing role of stakeholders (Urbinati, et
al., 2017; Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). The involvement of stakeholders
within the organizational ecosystem has been identified by other authors
(Lewandowski, 2016; Antikainen and Valkokari, 2016; Nuβholz, 2018) as
crucial for the successful implementation of a circular business model.
Despite this the full comprehension of the role of stakeholders for the
successful implementation of a circular economy strategy is still under-
research and calls for more research. Specifically, it is necessary to
understand which are the mechanism more suitable for their active
involvement as well as to explore the role and contribution that digital
platforms can have in enabling the creation of an innovation ecosystem
focused on the challenges of circular economy.

2.2. Innovation Ecosystems and Digital Platforms: a Quintuple

Helix perspective

The issue of innovation ecosystems has been a topic largely debated with
different contributions shaping from the regional development to the open
innovation. The premises at the basis of the systemic view on innovation
ecosystem is that innovation is not more a linear but a systemic process
that grows within a network of inter-organizational relationships (Zajac
and Olsen, 1993; Powell et al., 1996) able to promote the interrelation and
integration of different knowledge sources and providers (Romano, et al.,
2014). Designing and managing of these complex network of actors, also
defined as innovation ecosystems, become mandatory to assure the
achievement of innovation goals by assuring participation and user-
centrality for the sustainable, inclusive and intelligent growth of
individuals, companies and territories (Passiante and Romano, 2016).
Innovation ecosystems are institutional infrastructures supporting
networking and collaboration among a plurality of stakeholders by
activating virtuous and knowledge-intensive flows of knowledge (Asheim
and Gertler, 2005; Romano et al., 2014). The debate on innovation
ecosystems identifies the attribute of sustainability within its main
characteristics (Passiante and Romano, 2016). The inbound and outbound
flows of knowledge activated by the interaction of the stakeholders within
the ecosystems, make these environments as sustainable contexts to

5
 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

booster the process of value creation, in its larger definition. A useful

framework for mapping and managing the dynamics undertaken in such
contexts is identifiable into the Quintuple Helix model (Carayannis and
Campbell, 2011). Inspired at the logic at the most well-known framework
of the Triple Helix model (Garner and Ternouth, 2011; Etzkowitz, and
Zhou, 2006), representative of the fruitful and knowledge relevant
interactions between governments, academia, industries and institutions,
the Quintuple Helix model embeds the Quadruple Helix (Carayannis and
Campbell, 2009), that included the media based and culture based public,
with the context of the natural environment, by demonstrating a more
visible attention at the sustainability dimension. In such a process,
universities and research centers, large and small companies, institutions
and governments are called to collaborate and cooperate each other, by
sharing knowledge and exchanging experiences, with a more direct and
active involvement of users in all the stages of the innovation process.
Despite the topic of innovation results to be intrinsically linked to the
paradigm of Circular Economy, very few studies have explored its
meaning and dynamic in the perspective of systems of innovation.
In the meantime, while the dimension of environmental sustainability
results to be well recognized into the debate on innovation ecosystems
(Etzkowitz, and Ranga, 2015), such as into the Quintuple Helix model
through the helix of natural and environmental transitions (Grundel and
Dahlström, 2016; Romano et al., 2014; Carayannis and Campbell, 2009),
the research in this field has missed to understand how innovation
ecosystems can support the development of processes of value creation in
line with the principles of Circular Economy. The process of value
creation into the innovation ecosystems arises from the interactions and
flows of knowledge activated by a plurality of actors that can be physically
and virtually connected. In allowing the creation of a bridge between
knowledge inside the organisations and knowledge outside the
organisations, innovation ecosystems are favourable locus for value
creation (Borin and Donato, 2015; Dumay, 2013). Web technologies and
digital platforms have enhanced the opportunities of value creation into the
innovation ecosystems by making more effective and rapid the processes
of knowledge creation, absorption and diffusion (Romano et al., 2014;
Muntaner-Perich and de la Rosa, 2007). Also in this perspective, it is
necessary to investigate which are the main characteristics and in which
way a digital platform can support the creation of an innovation
ecosystems for the achievement of goals related to the Circular Economy.

6
 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

3. Methodology

This paper employs an exploratory qualitative approach based on the

methodology of case study (Yin, 1994, 2003) and research in action
(Argyris, and Schön, 1989). As suitable investigative tool for the analysis
of a contemporary phenomenon in its natural setting, case study is
preferred when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not
clearly evident (Yin, 1994, 2003). As for the research in action, the active
involvement of researchers into the development of the study has allowed
to access at a privileged and rigorous sources of information.
The case analyses the Italian Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform -
ICESP, as extreme case study of a platform based ecosystem of
stakeholders specialized into the domain of circular economy.
Conceived as a virtual environment supporting the processes of
networking, knowledge sharing and collaborative partnership, ICESP is
the Italian Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform, a mirror Platform of
ECESP, the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform. ECESP is
a joint initiative by the European Commission and the European Economic
and Social Committee and was born to foster the transition towards a
circular economy bringing together stakeholders active in the broad field
of the circular economy as action included in the 2015 EU Action Plan for
the Circular Economy actions, concept enforced in the last Communication
COM (2019) 190 final (Bruxelles, 4.3.2019).
ICESP has been launched in May 2018 by ENEA, the Italian National
Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic
Development.
For its characteristics and features, ICESP is clearly identified as an
extreme case study.
The case of ICESP is here addressed toward the comprehension of the
dynamics and processes of an innovation ecosystem built around a digital
platform and populated by a community of actors, that in coherence with
the framework of Quintuple Helix, will promote processes of fertilization
and promotion in the field of the circular economy.
More in detail, the case study analysis has been organized around three
main areas, related to the its strategic, functional-organizational, and
technical model.

4. Findings

Focusing on the pillars of the theoretical background (circular economy,

innovation ecosystem through digital platforms, and quintuple helix,), the

7
 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

analysis of ICESP has to be address toward the comprehension of its

strategic, functional-organizational, and technical model.

About the strategic model, the study has allowed to understand as ICESP
exists because the European Commission, in order to support the Circular
Economy Action Plan strategies and future related funding, has launched
the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform – ECESP. ENEA
has been selected in ECESP Coordination Group as representative of the
Research sector, and in consideration of this three-year assignment, it has
been enrolled by the Commission to act as a national hub for the circular
economy. Therefore, ENEA promoted the realization of an ECESP
national Italian interface, by the constitution of the “Italian Circular
Economy Stakeholder Platform - ICESP”. Both are initiatives for
deepening and stakeholders’ engagement, to overcome sectorial activities
and highlight inter-sectorial opportunities and challenges through a
meeting point where stakeholders can share their solutions and work
together to address specific challenges, linking existing initiatives and
supporting the circular economy at national, regional and local level, to
support its implementation.

ICESP main goal of short-medium-long term is to create a point of

national convergence on initiatives, experiences, critical issues,
perspectives and expectations on the circular economy that the Italian
system wants and can represent in Europe with a single voice, promoting
the Italian way for circular economy, to overcome the fragmentation of
Italian initiatives on Circular Economy and to establish a permanent
instrument promoting the dialogue, knowledge and Italian best practices
diffusion.

As for the linkage with the ECESP, ENEA will transfer the information
derived from the participation in the ECESP Coordination Group towards
ICESP members and at the same time it will disseminate in Europe the
Italian good practices in the field of circular economy gathered through
ICESP.
Furthermore, ECESP inputs will be fed in ICESP to ensure continue and
fruitful connection (Figure 1.)

8
 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

About the functional-organizational model, ICESP’s stakeholders are

currently represented by institutions, industries and business associations,
research, civil societies. In particular, the ICESP platform follows two
different and complementary ways to contribute. It is possible to sign the
ICESP Charter to become effective member and/or contribute to working
groups. The effective members are distributed as follows:
ORGANIZATION TYPE NUMBER
Institutions 8
Industries and business associations 28
Research Centres and Universities 11
Civil society 2

ICESP subscribers agree on the relevance and the common interest

regarding:

 eco-innovation, research, development and technology transfer;

 regulatory, financial and market instruments;
 enterprises and supply chains organizational models;
 measurement tools and indicators;
 guidance and support to businesses;
 promotion of new cultural approaches and lifestyles:
 role of territories and cities in guiding the transition from global to
local and vice-versa

However, many other organizations are involved in working groups even

if they have not signed the Charter, reaching an approximate number of
100.

9
 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

ICESP ‘s work is organized in the following six working group (see also
table XX):

 WG1: Research and eco-innovation, knowledge diffusion and

education
 WG2: Policy and Governance tools
 WG3: Instruments for measuring circular economy
 WG4: Systems and models for sustainable and circular design,
production, distribution and consumption
 WG5: Cities and territory
 WG6: Best Practices and Integrated Approaches

Within the WG5 “Cities and territory” stakeholders are classifiable

according to the quintuple helix, because citizens, social entrepreneurs and
activists are engaged in the platform too.
Furthermore, some good practices linked to WG5’s activities are
classifiable within the frame of the quintuple helix, in which citizens and
city makers are the main actors, together the other representatives of the
quintuple helix, and a few best practices in which citizens are become co-
governors of city commons have been collected, too.

All them are involved in periodic consultations in relation to the ECESP

Coordination Group meeting. Additionally, the operational and
consultation activities realized by the Working Groups are aimed to
produce position papers, recommendations and guidelines to be presented
in ECESP and will be useful for the promotion of the Italian way for
circular economy and with various topics of interest including:
 Research and eco-innovation
 Dialogue and good practices collection
 Dissemination of knowledge and training
 Regulation
 Financial instruments
 Circular economy measurement
 Improvement of public awareness on sustainable consumption models

Finally, the WGs are also involved into the organization of events
dedicated to communication and dissemination of results.

10
 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

As for mechanisms adopted for activating cooperation, each Working

group has 2 or 3 coordinators (see table 2), engaging to set up periodical
meeting to activate cooperation and deliver the expected results.
Table

Working Group Coordination

WG. 1 - Research and eco-innovation, CNA, Puglia Region-ARTI,
knowledge diffusion and education University of Bologna
WG. 2 - Policy and Governance tools Minister of Environment DG-
RIN, Minister od Economic
Development, Unicircular
WG. 3 - Instruments for measuring circular ENEA, Minister of Environment
economy –DG SVI
WG. 4 - Systems and models for sustainable ENEA, ENEL, Intesa Sanpaolo
and circular design, production, distribution and Innovation Center
consumption
WG. 5 - Cities and territory Agency for Territorial Cohesion
, ENEA
WG. 6 - Best practices and Integrated approaches ENEA, Puglia Region-ARTI,
Unioncamere

The platform includes a strong work from the coordination team for
ensuring the achievement of results in line with the platform aim.
Moreover, the General assembly sets the annual plan for the Working
Groups (WGs) work. The activities are carrying out both in offline mode
as well as online by using the interface available on the website
www.icesp.it.
The outcomes are published in the website and are available for free
download. Another offline/online work has been developed for the
contribution on Good Practices (GPs). Indeed, the GPs can be directly
uploaded in the website (function foreseen by June 2019) but also they can
be uploaded by coordination team (the manager of website) that collects
them in the WGs activities through stakeholders’ involvement, using a
specific format. All those GPs are the basis for implementing the ICESP
GPs database that is then implemented on the ICESP website and has a
specific interface for the users. The GPs format takes into account all
mandatory fields required by the European Platform ECESP in order to
make possible for the contributors to make easier the submission also in
ECESP website, increasing the visibility and the GP dissemination.

Different stakeholders are expected to contribute in different way and

these expectations are reflected in working group. For example, research
(RTO and Academy) is more engaged in Research and Ecoinnovation

11
 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

working group, while industries in Design, Production and Consumption

system working group. However, all the sectors are involved in all
working group to ensure the “ICESP closing the loop”.

As for the technical model, ICESP has a website aiming to become and
interactive way for stakeholders’ communication. Other National
platforms exist, with similar approach even if with different internal
mechanism. However, every platform is configured as voluntary work
supporting ECESP work through Coordination Group. Standard does still
not exist

5. Conclusions

Aimed to provide a contribution of systematization at the intersection of

the research on Circular Economy and Innovation Ecosystems in the
perspective of Quintuple Helix, the study has analysed the case of ICESP,
as institutional initiative aimed to support the development of circular
economy. As extreme case study of a platform supporting the creation of
an innovation ecosystem, the analysis of ICESP has been addressed toward
the comprehension of its strategic, organizational and technological model.
In allowing to demonstrate how the availability of a digital platform,
conceived in the frame of larger and institutional strategy, can positively
impact on the creation of an innovation ecosystem, the case of ICESP has
offered interesting insights on the different categories of stakeholders
involved in and their characterization according to the model of quintuple
helix.
Implications for theory arise in terms of replication of the study, also
through the embracement of investigative tools aimed to monitor the role
and centrality of stakeholders, the foresight and the dynamic analysis of
their behaviours, the comparison of similar initiatives in different national
and regional contexts. Additionally, the study offers several implications
for the agenda of policy makers, in terms of sustainable and collaborative
innovation processes for supporting the development of circular economy.

References

Antikainen, M., & Valkokari, K. (2016). A framework for sustainable circular business model
innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(7).

12
 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1989). Participatory action research and action science compared: A
commentary. American behavioral scientist, 32(5), 612-623.
Asheim, B. T., & Gertler, M. S. (2005). The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems.
In The Oxford handbook of innovation.
Borin, E., & Donato, F. (2015). Unlocking the potential of IC in Italian cultural ecosystems. Journal
of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 285-304.
Cappellaro, F., Cutaia, L., Innella, C., Meloni, C., Pentassuglia, R., Porretto, V., (2019), Co-design
of a circular economy through urban living labs: Transformative planning practices in Rome
(Italy). Urban Transformations (Forthcoming)
Carayannis, E. G., and Campbell, D. F. (2009), “Mode 3'and'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st
century fractal innovation ecosystem”, International journal of technology management,
Vol.46, No. 3-4, pp. 201-234.
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix
innovation systems. In Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems
(pp. 1-63). Springer, New York, NY.
Chertow, M. R. (2000). Industrial symbiosis: literature and taxonomy. Annual review of energy and
the environment, 25(1), 313-337.
Dumay, J. (2013). The third stage of IC: towards a new IC future and beyond. Journal of
Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 5-9.
Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2006). Triple Helix twins: innovation and sustainability. Science and
public policy, 33(1), 77-83.
Etzkowitz, H., and Ranga, M. (2015), “Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for
innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society”, In Entrepreneurship and
Knowledge Exchange (pp. 117-158). Routledge.
Garner, C., & Ternouth, P. (2011). Absorptive capacity and innovation in the triple helix model.
International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 2(4), 357-371.
Geissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S. N., de Carvalho, M. M., & Evans, S. (2018). Business models and
supply chains for the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, 712-721.
Geng, Y., Fu, J., Sarkis, J., & Xue, B. (2012). Towards a national circular economy indicator
system in China: an evaluation and critical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 23(1), 216-
224.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: the expected
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner
production, 114, 11-32.
Graedel, T. E., & Allenby, B. R. (1995). Industrial Ecology Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Grundel, I., and Dahlström, M. (2016), “A Quadruple and Quintuple Helix approach to regional
innovation systems in the transformation to a forestry-based bioeconomy”, Journal of the
Knowledge Economy, Vol. 7, No.4, pp. 963-983.
Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., & Heinz, M. (2015). How circular is the global
economy? An assessment of material flows, waste production, and recycling in the European
Union and the world in 2005. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(5), 765-777.
Innella, C.,, Barberio, G., Brunori, C., Musmeci, F., Petta, L.,(2017). Economia circolare in ambito
urbano. Energia-Ambiente-Innovazione 1, 58-63.- DOI 10.12910/EAI2017-009
Lewandowski, M. (2016). Designing the business models for circular economy—Towards the
conceptual framework. Sustainability, 8(1), 43.
Lyle, J. (1994), Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development, Wiley, New York, NY.
Miliute-Plepiene, J., & Plepys, A. (2015). Does food sorting prevents and improves sorting of
household waste? A case in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner production, 101, 182-192.

13
 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

Muntaner-Perich, E., and de la Rosa Esteva, J. L. (2007), “Using dynamic electronic institutions to
enable digital business ecosystems”, In Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms
in Agent Systems II (pp. 259-273). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Mylan, J., Holmes, H., & Paddock, J. (2016). Re-introducing consumption to the ‘circular
economy’: a sociotechnical analysis of domestic food provisioning. Sustainability, 8(8), 794.
Nußholz, .L.K. (2018), A circular business model mapping tool for creating value from prolonged
product lifetime and closed material loops, Journal of Cleaner Production, 197 (2018), pp. 185-
194.
Passiante, G., & Romano, A. (Eds.). (2016). Creating Technology-Driven Entrepreneurship:
Foundations, Processes and Environments. Springer.
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the
locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative science quarterly,
116-145.
Ranta, V., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Ritala, P., & Mäkinen, S. J. (2018). Exploring institutional drivers
and barriers of the circular economy: a cross-regional comparison of China, the US, and
Europe. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135, 70-82.
Romano, A., Passiante, G., Del Vecchio, P., and Secundo, G. (2014) “The innovation ecosystem as
booster for the innovative entrepreneurship in the smart specialization strategy” International
Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, Vol. 5, No.3 , pp. 271–288.
Schneider, A., (2015) Reflexivity in sustainability accounting and management: transcending the
economic focus of corporate sustainability, J. Bus. Ethics, 127 (2015), pp. 525-536.
Stahel, W. (2010). The performance economy. Springer.
Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., & Chiesa, V. (2017). Towards a new taxonomy of circular economy
business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 487-498.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publishing.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zajac, E. J., & Olsen, C. P. (1993). From transaction cost to transactional value analysis:
Implications for the study of interorganizational strategies. Journal of management studies,
30(1), 131-145.

Authors’ Short Bio

Pasquale Del Vecchio PhD
He is a Researcher and Lecturer at the Department of Engineering for
Innovation of the University of Salento, Italy. In 2007 he was a visiting
PhD student in the Center for Business Intelligence at MIT’s Sloan School
of Management where he had the opportunity to consolidate the
methodological framework of his thesis titled “CRM 2.0 and Reputational
Dynamics in the Blogosphere. Lessons learnt from a Software Firm Case
Study”. His research field concerns the issues of user-driven innovation
and open innovation with a specific focus on the phenomenon of virtual
communities of customers. Currently, he is involved in a project related to
the development of a smart tourism destination as well as in development
of innovative approaches at the creation of technology driven

14
 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

entrepreneurship. These research activities have been documented in

approximately 40 publications spanning international journals, conference
proceedings and book chapters.

Giuseppina PASSIANTE
She is full professor at the Department of Engineering for Innovation -
University of Salento (Italy). She leads the public-private research
laboratory named X-Net.Lab whose researchers have been involved in
several projects funded by the EC under FP6 (DBE, OPAALS) and FP7
(SECURE SCM, CRESCENDO) as well as by the Italian Ministry of
Research (TEKNE, MED.NET). Currently, her research fields concern the
e-Business management, and more specifically the management of
learning organizations and learning processes in the Net-Economy. Her
focus is mainly on the development of Intellectual Capital, both in the
entrepreneurial and in the academic organizations. She is also expert in
development of local systems versus information and communications
technologies, ITs and clusters approach, complexity in economic systems.
In these research fields she has published several books and about 100
papers. Prof. Passiante is also a Member of the Independent Evaluation
Committee (OIV) of the Italian National Research Council (CNR).

Grazia Barberio
PhD in Environmental Science. She is responsible of Section for Circular
Economy in the Department for Sustainability Department for
Sustainability of ENEA - Italian National Agency for New Technologies,
Energy and Sustainable Economic Development - and she is researcher at
ENEA since 2005 with expertise on: circular economy and ecoinnovation;
sustainability evaluation using Life Cycle Thinking approach, Industrial
ecology and Industrial Symbiosis. She is actually the reference of technical
coordination of ICESP (Italian Circular Economy Platform); moreover she
is member of the Italian National General States for the Green economy
since 2012 and member of “Italian network of LCA” and co-coordinator of
the working group “DIRE- Development and Improvement of LCA
methodology: Research and Exchange of experiences” since 2005. She is
involved in several EU funded projects concerning green/circular economy
and ecoinnovation and is author/co-author of more than 80 scientific
papers published on peer-reviewed journals, Italian journals, proceedings
of national/international conferences.

Carolina Innella

15
 Abstract proposal for IFKAD 2019, Matera, Italy 5-7 June 2019

She is researcher at ENEA - Italian National Agency for New

Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, since
2000, and the background is a Master Degree in Chemistry, “La
Sapienza”, University of Rome, 1996. She is actually working in the
Department for Sustainability, “Circular Economy Section” of ENEA. Her
research activities are related to the strategies, methodologies and
technologies of the resources sustainable management, through the
implementation of integrated circular economy models for the territorial
sustainable management, with particular reference to urban areas.
Her research activities have been documented in approximately 40
publications spanning international and national journals, and conference
proceedings.
She is member of the Chemists and Phisicists Order of Matera Province,
member of the National Federation of Chemists and Phisicists Orders, and
member, for ENEA, of the directive board of the Cultural and Creative
Industries CLUSTER “Basilicata Creativa”.

Roberta De Carolis
She has been working in ENEA - Italian National Agency for New
Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development -since
2013 in the field of raw materials, author of different research publication
and patents in this field. She did PhD in Chemical Sciences and she is very
active in national and international research, with more than 10 years of
experience in analytical and physical chemistry, as well as project
management. She was the reference of European project for Division for
Resource Efficiency and she was engaged for the same role in the Section
of Circular economy of ENEA Department for Sustainability. She is WP
leader in CICERONE project and scientific reference of National
Agreement for Phosphorus Platform.

16

View publication stats